Quantcast
Sunday , August 20 2017
Breaking News
Home / Islamabad / IHC will hear important tax references filed against FBR field offices on Monday
IHC will hear important tax references filed against FBR field offices on Monday

IHC will hear important tax references filed against FBR field offices on Monday

ISLAMABAD: Two benches of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) will hear some important tax references involving field offices of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) on Monday.

A division bench of the IHC comprising Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani; and a single bench comprising Justice Aamer Faroq would hear the cases.

The former bench would hear the matters filed by LTU commissioner income tax. The appellant had filed cases against M/s Dowel Schlumberger Western and M/s Sedco Forex International Inc.

Meanwhile, Justice Aamer Farooq would hear the matter filed by M/s Tulip Riverside Hotel. M/s Tulip Riverside Hotel had filed the case against Regional Tax Office (RTO), Islamabad.

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

M/s Tulip Riverside Hotel had filed the case seeking restrictions for RTO, Islamabad about recovering outstanding tax amount or making any other coercive move prior to court’s directions on the issue.

M/s Tulip Riverside Hotel also stated that show cause notice mentioning outstanding tax amount was issued with mala-fide intentions. The appellant further prayed the court bar RTO from taking coercive measure to recover the said amount.

M/s Tulip Riverside Hotel 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.

The appellant had also prayed the court to decide the case early as the appellant had to bear financial complications after the case.

The appellant 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.