Summary: In the course of legal proceedings, the petitioner's counsel argued the case on its merits and requested a directive to be issued to respondent No.1 (FBR, Islamabad) for the resolution of a representation submitted by the petitioner under Section 7 of the FBR Act, 2007, dated 07-11-2009. The respondents' counsel did not provide any legal counterarguments to the petitioner's counsel's request.As a result, the court issued a directive that respondent No.1/FBR must review and resolve the petitioner's application dated 07-11-2009 within two months, ensuring that all concerned parties have an opportunity to present their case during the process. It was also mentioned that any bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner should be encashable subject to the orders issued by FBR, as referred to above.Consequently, the writ petition was resolved according to the terms outlined in the directive.

Summary: (a) Federal Board of Revenue—Creation of field formations and administrative architecture ----Federal Board of Revenue Act, 2007, Ss. 3 & 4(1)(r) FBR is a statutory body empowered to create field formations for efficient implementation of fiscal laws and to assign appropriate titles (RTOs/LTOs). Establishment of LTOs and allocation of functions on territorial/functional bases fall within this mandate. (b) Income-tax authorities—Conferment and transfer of jurisdiction ----Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Ss. 207 & 209(1), 209(8A) The Ordinance sets a hierarchical structure of income-tax authorities and expressly authorizes the Board or its delegate to transfer jurisdiction from one authority to another. The expression “transfer of jurisdiction” in S. 209(8A) must be read purposively to facilitate responsive and specialized tax administration; consent of the taxpayer or rigid territorial limits are not prerequisites for a lawful transfer. (c) Validity of jurisdictional reallocation from RTO Faisalabad to LTO Multan ----Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S. 209(8A); FBR Act, 2007, S. 4(1)(r) Order dated 12.10.2020 transferring appellants’ cases to LTO Multan is backed by express statutory authority and aligns with the objective of efficient oversight of large taxpayers. Contemporaneous jurisdiction orders allocating classes of taxpayers to LTOs reflect a consistent and lawful administrative practice under S. 209. (d) Administrative inconvenience, due process and natural justice ----Administrative law principles Logistical inconvenience, increased cost, or need to submit documents at a different office do not vitiate an otherwise lawful exercise of statutory power. No arbitrariness or breach of procedural safeguards was shown; hence, no ground for judicial interference existed. (e) Policy rationale—Large Taxpayer Offices and sectoral clustering ----Tax Administration Reform Project (TARP) (context) Creation/expansion of LTOs and sector-specific clustering (e.g., sugar industry at LTO Lahore) are consistent with statutory purposes of specialization, uniformity and efficiency across geographical boundaries; they do not render the transfer ultra vires. (f) Precedent relied upon by appellants—Distinguished ----Messrs Haq Bahu Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation (2016 PTD 955) Cited authority does not negate the Board’s express power under S. 209(8A); the challenge premised on absence of transfer power is untenable given the clear statutory text. (g) Disposition — All intra-court appeals, including I.C.A. No. 4404 of 2021 and the connected matters (Annexure-A), dismissed. Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2020 upholding the jurisdictional order is maintained.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ---Arts. 4, 10-A & 37(d) Right to fair trial and equal access to justice—Challenge to the amendment in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024—The impugned amendment abolished an appellate forum, thereby burdening the judiciary and restricting taxpayers' access to justice—Held, that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) faces no financial burden in filing Tax References as it is exempt from court fees, whereas litigants must pay Rs. 50,000 per reference—Such a distinction violates the fundamental right of equal treatment under the law—Amendment restricting appellate remedies infringes Articles 4, 10-A, and 37(d) of the Constitution, which guarantee due process and inexpensive, expeditious justice. (b) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: ---S. 133—Appellate procedure—Elimination of one appellate forum—Pecuniary jurisdiction and the right of appeal—The Ordinance originally provided a three-tier appellate structure: first before the Commissioner (Appeals), then the Appellate Tribunal, and finally a Tax Reference before the High Court—The impugned amendment removed one appellate forum, placing an excessive burden on the High Court—Held, that the appellate forums play a crucial role in ensuring just adjudication, particularly in tax matters, and their elimination clogs the judicial system by overburdening the High Court. (c) Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024: ---Legislative intent and judicial interpretation—Doctrine of Textualism—Whether an amendment reducing appellate forums in tax cases aligns with constitutional mandates—Held, that judicial interpretation should adhere to the plain meaning of the law rather than inferred legislative intent—However, when legislative amendments obstruct the administration of justice and cause systemic delays, courts must assess their impact on fundamental rights—Impugned amendment scrutinized in light of the doctrine of textualism as discussed in Service Global Footwear Limited and another v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2023 Lahore 471). (d) Role of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR): ---Regulatory functions—Judicial precedents—The FBR, as held in Chenab Flour and General Mills v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Lahore 343) and Ramzan Sugar Mills Limited v. Federal Board of Revenue (2021 PTD 1321), is a regulatory body responsible for enforcing fiscal laws and tax collection—Held, that FBR’s inefficiencies, including delays in hearings, inadequate reasoning in orders, and lack of judicious application of mind, contribute significantly to tax litigation—Impugned amendment exacerbates this issue by increasing the burden on the High Court without addressing systemic flaws in tax adjudication. (e) Administration of justice: ---Delay in adjudication—Burden on the judiciary—Held, that removing an appellate forum without enhancing the efficiency of lower tax adjudicating bodies results in undue delay in tax litigation—Commissioners (Appeals) frequently issue sketchy and deficient orders, necessitating remand, thereby increasing the backlog of cases—Such systemic delays violate the principles of fair and expeditious justice, as affirmed in Shaheen Merchant v. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PTD 2126). (f) Judicial oversight and executive accountability: ---Summoning of FBR official—Dr. Ishtiaq A. Khan, Director General, FBR, directed to appear before the Court—Court sought clarification on the legislative background, rationale, and objectives of the amendment—Held, that amendments affecting fundamental rights and judicial efficiency require thorough scrutiny to prevent obstruction of justice. ---Cited Cases: Chenab Flour and General Mills v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Lahore 343) Ramzan Sugar Mills Limited v. Federal Board of Revenue (2021 PTD 1321) Shaheen Merchant v. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PTD 2126) Rizwan Ali Sayal v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2024 Lahore 54 = 2024 PTD 32) Service Global Footwear Limited and another v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2023 Lahore 471) ---Disposition: Case adjourned for further proceedings on 25.03.2025, with the FBR Director General directed to provide a detailed reply regarding the policy rationale and impact of the amendment on judicial efficiency.

Summary: Background M/s. Mehr Dastgir Leather and Footwear Industries (Pvt) Limited filed a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, challenging several show cause notices issued under Sections 10(3) and 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and Rule 37 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006. These notices were issued regarding tax periods between 2005-2007, nearly 15 years after the fact. Despite orders from the Supreme Court of Pakistan upholding the company's position, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) continued to delay processing the company’s refund claims, ultimately issuing the disputed show cause notices. ----- Issues ----- 1) Whether the issuance of show cause notices 15 years after the tax periods, with FBR's condonation of time under Section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was valid. ----- 2) Whether the issuance of show cause notices contradicted the Supreme Court’s prior rulings regarding the company's tax refunds. ----- 3) Whether the FBR’s actions in issuing the notices constituted mala fide and an abuse of power. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome ----- Condonation of time: The court held that FBR's condonation of time was invalid. While FBR condoned the time limit for finalizing the assessment until 29.08.2022, the show cause notices issued on 22.08.2022 were outside the permissible timeline, as no reasonable grounds for condonation were provided. Section 74 requires FBR to justify any extension of the limitation period, which was not done in this case. ----- Contradiction to previous rulings: The court reasoned that the show cause notices involved the same dispute that had already been decided by the courts, including the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Therefore, the issuance of the notices violated the legal principle of finality of judgments, which protects parties from being subjected to the same dispute repeatedly. ----- Mala fide: The court noted that the FBR's actions appeared to be in bad faith, as the petitioner had been waiting for their refund for years, yet instead of processing it, they were served with show cause notices. This suggested a frivolous attempt by the FBR to delay the refund and retaliate against the petitioner-company. The court quashed the show cause notices and directed the respondent-department to process the company’s refund claims within three months. ----- Citations/Precedents Sales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 10(3), 11(2), and 74 Sales Tax Rules, 2006 (Rule 37) Federal Board of Revenue through Chairman, Islamabad and others v. Abdul Ghani and another (2021 SCMR 1154) Supreme Court Orders in Civil Petition Nos. 2-L, 3-L, and 41-L of 2014 (dated 27.12.2017) Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) Decisions in Sales Tax Reference Nos. 23 of 2010, 30 of 2011, and 6 of 2017

Summary: Scope of review --- Background: This civil review petition challenges the Supreme Court's decision dated August 8, 2023, in Civil Petition No. 2166-L/2023. Ahmad Sikander was issued notices under Sections 122(9) and 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for allegedly concealing a foreign bank account in the UK, which was not disclosed in his wealth statement. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming all relevant documents, including foreign income and bank statements, were submitted and available on the e-Portal of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). However, the tax authorities dismissed his explanations, leading to his conviction for tax evasion. The case moved through various appellate stages, with the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court dismissing his appeals. Sikander subsequently filed a review petition arguing that the courts erred by ignoring the availability of documents on the e-Portal. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the documents Sikander submitted on the FBR e-Portal were considered in his defense. ---2) Whether the petitioner can raise new arguments or evidence at the review stage. ---3) Whether the court’s initial ruling overlooked any significant facts or errors on the face of the record. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Review Jurisdiction and Scope: The majority of the Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, allowed the review petition. The Court noted that Sikander’s documents were available on the FBR e-Portal and were improperly considered as fresh evidence by the lower courts. The review petition was accepted to allow a re-hearing of the case, citing that this oversight raises sufficient questions of law and facts, and providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present his case serves the interest of justice. ---- Judgment Overturned: The majority opinion recalled the August 8, 2023 decision, restoring Civil Petition No. 2166-L/2023 to its original number and scheduling a fresh hearing after Eid-ul-Fitr 2024. ---- Dissenting Opinion: Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi dissented, arguing that the scope of review is limited under Article 188 of the Constitution and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He emphasized that new arguments cannot be introduced at the review stage and that re-appreciation of evidence is not permitted. He concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, thus the review petition should be dismissed. ---- Citations/Precedents: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (Order XXVI and Order XLVII) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XLVII) Ghulam Murtaza vs. Abdul Salam Shah (2010 SCMR 1883) Commissioner Inland Revenue vs. MSC Switzerland Geneva (C.R.P. 432-K/2022) Shamsher Ahmad vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1931) State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008 SCC 612) Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997 SCC 715)

Summary: Background: M/s Nordex Singapore Equipment Ltd. ("Petitioner"), an offshore company registered in Singapore, entered into an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contract with FFC Energy Ltd. ("Respondent No.3") for the supply of wind power equipment. The equipment was imported and transferred to FFCEL, with payments made partially in advance and upon completion. The Petitioner filed for an advance ruling from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) seeking exemption from tax deduction under Section 152 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, citing the Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaty (ADTT) between Pakistan and Singapore. The FBR directed FFCEL to deduct tax from the Petitioner before remitting payments, leading to the filing of this writ petition. -----Issues: 1) Whether the income arising from the offshore supply of goods is taxable in Pakistan under the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement between Pakistan and Singapore. --2) Whether the Petitioner is liable for tax deduction under Section 152 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. ---3) Whether FFC Energy Ltd. can remit payments to the Petitioner without tax deduction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Holding: The Lahore High Court held that the Commissioner Inland Revenue’s decision to deduct tax from the Petitioner was flawed, as it failed to properly consider the EPC contract, the Double Taxation Treaty, and the relevant legal provisions. ----Reasoning: The Court found that the FBR had not adequately addressed the Petitioner’s arguments regarding its non-resident status and the Double Taxation Treaty between Pakistan and Singapore. The Court emphasized that the Petitioner did not have a permanent establishment in Pakistan, and the supply of goods took place outside Pakistan. Therefore, the Commissioner failed to provide a "speaking order" addressing all material facts. The Court held that the order was arbitrary and lacked proper reasoning, thus requiring fresh consideration. ----Outcome: The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Commissioner Inland Revenue for fresh consideration, directing the Commissioner to provide proper hearing to all parties. The Court also ruled that no coercive measures should be taken against the Petitioner until a final decision is made. ----Citations/Precedents: MOLLAH EJAHAR ALI v. GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN (PLD 1970 SC 173) TOWN COMMITTEE, PIPLAN v. Muhammad Hanif and others (2008 SCMR 723) GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN v. FARHEEN RASHID (2011 SCMR 1) Messrs UNITED WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. WORKERS' UNION v. Messrs UNITED WOOLLEN MILLS LTD (2010 SCMR 1475) ALTAF IBRAHIM QURESHI v. AAM LOG ITTEHAD (PLD 2019 SC 745) CHENAB FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (PLD 2021 Lahore 343) MURREE BREWERY CO. LTD. v. PAKISTAN (PLD 1972 SC 279) SARGODHA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED v. HABIB BANK LIMITED (2007 SCMR 1240) M.C.R (PVT.) LTD. FRANCHISEE OF PIZZA HUT v. MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2021 CLD 639) MIAN ASGHAR ALI v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (2017 SCMR 118) SHAHEEN MERCHANT v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN/NATIONAL TARIFF COMMISSION (2021 PTD 2126 Lahore) SHELL PAKISTAN LIMITED v. PUNJAB (2020 PTD 1607)

Summary: Background: This case involved several intra-court appeals filed by various companies, including M/s Nishat (Chunian) Ltd., under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The appeals were against a consolidated order passed by a single judge of the Lahore High Court on 5th June 2014, regarding the issuance of show-cause notices by the FBR under Sections 161 and 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The appellants challenged the maintainability of these show-cause notices and sought the quashment of the FBR's actions. ----Issues: 1) Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeals: Whether the intra-court appeals were maintainable in light of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, considering the availability of an appeal, revision, or review mechanism under the applicable tax laws. ----2) Validity of Show-Cause Notices: Whether the show-cause notices issued by the FBR under Sections 161 and 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, were lawful and within the FBR's jurisdiction. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Maintainability: The court held that the appeals were not maintainable. Under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, intra-court appeals are barred if the original proceedings under challenge provide for at least one appeal, revision, or review. The court found that Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, provided a remedy for appealing against the show-cause notices issued by the FBR. The appeals before the High Court arose from proceedings that would culminate in an original order subject to appeal, making the intra-court appeals barred by law. Substantive Issue: The court did not address the merits of the show-cause notices or the legality of the FBR's actions, as the appeals were dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Outcome: The appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, and the appellants were directed to pursue the remedy available under Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Aslam Sukhera v. Collector Land Acquisition, Lahore (PLD 2005 SC 45) Deputy Commissioner, Attock v. Lawrencepur Woollen Textile Mills (1999 SCMR 1357) Vice Chancellor, University of Health Sciences v. Breeha Zainab (PLJ 2011 Lahore 811) Mst. Karim Bibi v. Hussain Bukhsh (PLD 1984 SC 344) Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1985 SC 107)

Summary: Time Barred Order in Original. Extension by FBR / Collector without reasons is invalid

Summary: Background: The Commissioner Inland Revenue filed a reference application under Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore, dated May 17, 2022. The case involved legal proceedings against Muhammad Afzal Cheema, who derived income from running Qader Dad Rice Mills. The tax authority issued notices to the respondent for investments made in immovable property, leading to the addition of Rs.34,47,938 to his taxable income for the tax year 2014. The respondent contested the order, arguing it was beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) notification extending the limitation period as ultra vires. ---Issues: Whether the general condonation of limitation under Section 214A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and related provisions during COVID-19 lockdowns was within the powers of the FBR. Whether the FBR's notification extending the limitation period applied to the respondent's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Condonation of Limitation: The court held that Section 214A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, grants the FBR the authority to condone time limits for actions required under the Ordinance. The notification dated June 30, 2020, extending the limitation due to COVID-19 was deemed valid, rational, and reasonable. The Tribunal erred in declaring the notification ultra vires. Applicability of the Notification: The notification had specific clauses for different scenarios. Clause (iii) applied to cases where notices under Section 122 were issued before June 30, 2019. The respondent's notice was issued on November 30, 2020, making Clause (iii) inapplicable. Clause (i) generally extended the limitation for finalizing issues pertaining to the tax year 2014, but it was intended for proceedings already commenced within the limitation period, not for initiating new proceedings beyond it. Outcome: The reference application was dismissed. The court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the notification for extending the limitation period under the specific circumstances of the case. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the FBR's notification did not apply to the respondent's case initiated after the limitation period. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 214A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Grants FBR authority to condone time limits. The Collector of Sales Tax, Gujranwala and others v. Super Asia Muhammad Din and Sons and others (2017 PTD 1756): Supreme Court's interpretation of the power to extend time limits under similar provisions of the Sales Tax Act. Federal Board of Revenue through its Chairman, Islamabad and others v. Abdul Ghani and another (2021 SCMR 1154): Emphasized the requirement of providing reasons for extending limitation periods. Faisalabad Electricity Supply Company Limited v. The Federation of Pakistan and others (2021 SCMR 1463): Addressed the scope of executive remedies in relation to judicial proceedings.