Quantcast
Wednesday , October 18 2017
Breaking News
Home / Islamabad / IHC adjourns hearing of tax reference filed by M/s Wateen Telecom Limited
IHC adjourns hearing of tax reference filed by M/s Wateen Telecom Limited

IHC adjourns hearing of tax reference filed by M/s Wateen Telecom Limited

ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court ‘dated in office’ hearing of a tax reference filed by M/s Wateen Telecom Limited. The company has challenged a recovery claim made by field office of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).

IHC bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq heard the case. The bench would resume hearing of the case as per scheduled by court administration.

M/s Wateen Telecom Limited had filed the reference in which the company had challenged a show cause notice issued by the Large Taxpayers Unit, Islamabad.

The appellant had challenged the act of recovery of said amount by commissioner Inland Revenue of Large Taxpayer’s Unit, Islamabad. M/s Wateen Telecom Limited was issued notice in head of sales tax.

M/s Wateen Telecom Limited had prayed the court that FBR office had issued a recovery notice to the company which did not hold lawful grounds.

The appellant had prayed the court to declare the act as illegal and without any lawful authority and an interim stay may be granted against recovery proceedings.

M/s Wateen Telecom Limited submitted before the court that the impugned order was issued under mala fide intentions and had no legal standing or authority and the court may decide on relief which it deemed appropriate in this regard. It also stated that due legal course was not followed by the department in issuing the order.

M/s Wateen Telecom Limited had also prayed the court to decide the case early as the appellant had to bear financial complications after the case.

ATIR, Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), officers of LTU including commissioner Inland Revenue, and others were made respondent in the case.

M/s Wateen Telecom Limited had also mentioned that departmental obligations were not met amid processing the notice of recovery demand while later the adjudication did not addressed grievances of the appellant.