A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: 8192

Message: Return type of CI_Session_database_driver::open($save_path, $name) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::open(string $path, string $name): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice

Filename: drivers/Session_database_driver.php

Line Number: 126

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: 8192

Message: Return type of CI_Session_database_driver::close() should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::close(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice

Filename: drivers/Session_database_driver.php

Line Number: 261

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: 8192

Message: Return type of CI_Session_database_driver::read($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::read(string $id): string|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice

Filename: drivers/Session_database_driver.php

Line Number: 143

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: 8192

Message: Return type of CI_Session_database_driver::write($session_id, $session_data) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::write(string $id, string $data): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice

Filename: drivers/Session_database_driver.php

Line Number: 193

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: 8192

Message: Return type of CI_Session_database_driver::destroy($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::destroy(string $id): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice

Filename: drivers/Session_database_driver.php

Line Number: 278

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: 8192

Message: Return type of CI_Session_database_driver::gc($maxlifetime) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::gc(int $max_lifetime): int|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice

Filename: drivers/Session_database_driver.php

Line Number: 306

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: ini_set(): Session ini settings cannot be changed after headers have already been sent

Filename: Session/Session.php

Line Number: 281

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: session_set_cookie_params(): Session cookie parameters cannot be changed after headers have already been sent

Filename: Session/Session.php

Line Number: 293

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: ini_set(): Session ini settings cannot be changed after headers have already been sent

Filename: Session/Session.php

Line Number: 303

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: ini_set(): Session ini settings cannot be changed after headers have already been sent

Filename: Session/Session.php

Line Number: 313

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: ini_set(): Session ini settings cannot be changed after headers have already been sent

Filename: Session/Session.php

Line Number: 314

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: ini_set(): Session ini settings cannot be changed after headers have already been sent

Filename: Session/Session.php

Line Number: 315

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: ini_set(): Session ini settings cannot be changed after headers have already been sent

Filename: Session/Session.php

Line Number: 316

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: session_set_save_handler(): Session save handler cannot be changed after headers have already been sent

Filename: Session/Session.php

Line Number: 107

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: session_start(): Session cannot be started after headers have already been sent

Filename: Session/Session.php

Line Number: 140

Backtrace:

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/application/controllers/Blog.php
Line: 24
Function: __construct

File: /home/lawyrspk02/public_html/index.php
Line: 292
Function: require_once

Federal Board of Revenue and Punjab Revenue Authority, jurisdictions of---Determination- - Lawyers of Pakistan

Federal Board of Revenue and Punjab Revenue Authority, jurisdictions of---Determination-

Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1534 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD USMAN QAYYUM
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 11 & 14---Punjab Sales TAX on Services Act (XLII of 2012), Second Sched., Serial 37---Recovery of sales TAX ---Federal Board of Revenue and Punjab Revenue Authority, jurisdictions of---Determination---Petitioner was manufacturer of copper wires who was paying provincial sales TAX to Punjab Revenue Authority and Federal Board of Revenue had also issued notice for recovery of sales TAX ---Validity---After devolution of certain powers upon promulgation of Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution, sales TAX and services had become exclusive domain of Provinces---If the case petitioner was rendering services and was covered by provisions of Punjab Sales TAX on Services Act, 2012 it was not liable to have itself registered with Federal Board of Revenue---Petitioner could not be burdened with compulsory registration as well as an adjudicative process to which it could not be subjected without reasonable cause and without LAW ful basis---Matter was to be resolved and decided inter se Federal Board of Revenue and Punjab Revenue Authority---Similar other matters had arisen and given rise to issue of comparative jurisdiction of Federal Board of Revenue and Punjab Revenue Authority---TAX liability of registered person in all such cases could not be made a rolling stone and if a registered person like the petitioner was willing to pay TAX then only one of the authorities could take cognizance of the matter and recover liability and imposition---Imposition in question could not be permitted to be recovered by both the authorities viz Federal Board of Revenue and Punjab Revenue Authority---High Court directed the Federal Board of Revenue to have matter resolved with Punjab Revenue Authority within a reasonable period of time---High Court further directed that relevant officer of Federal Board of Revenue should touch base with officer of Punjab Revenue Authority and any such proceedings against petitioner would only be continued after issue had been resolved between Federal Board of Revenue and Punjab Revenue Authority till then show-cause notice were held in abeyance---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.


Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1493 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, GUJRANWALA
Side Opponent : S.K. STEEL CASTING, GUJRANWALA
Fiscal LAW ---Charging of TAX ---Principle---TAX cannot be charged and levied unless it falls squarely within purview of charging provision---TAX ing LAW cannot be extended by implication beyond clear import of language used.


Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1493 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, GUJRANWALA
Side Opponent : S.K. STEEL CASTING, GUJRANWALA
Ss. 2(25), 14, 25, 26, 38 & 47---Sales TAX Rules, 2006, R. 6---Recovery of sales TAX before registration---"Liable to be registered"---Scope---Authorities from scrutiny of electricity bills issued demand notices to respondents and held them liable to be registered and required to pay sales TAX along with default surcharge for previous years---Such order passed by authorities was set aside by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue---Validity---Notice could be issued to a person confronting material which, in opinion of the authorities, was sufficient to bring it within scope of 'liable to be registered'---After receipt of reply and providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, a speaking order could be passed holding person liable to be registered and after registration, demand could be raised by the authorities---Intention of LAW maker was that where a person was liable to be registered, department was first required to register that person compulsorily or otherwise in accordance with LAW and then charge sales TAX under S. 3 of Sales TAX Act, 1990 and could proceed against that person regarding prior to the registration contravention of provisions of Sales TAX Act, 1990, if any---Such person in circumstances, was entitled to raise all factual and legal objections against proceedings so initiated or to be initiated by authorities---Reference was disposed of accordingly.


Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1414 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Syed TAYYAB HUSSAIN RIZVI
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 2(1)(c), 3 & 5---Finance Act (IX of 2014), S. 10---Income Support Levy Rules, 2013, Rr. 3, 4 & 6---Income TAX Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 2(38-A), 209 & 210---Repeal of LAW ---Absence of saving clause---Effect---TAX payers were aggrieved of demand notices issued for recovery of Income Support Levy---Plea raised by TAX payers was that Finance Act, 2014 had repealed Income Support Levy Act, 2013 causing same to be ceased to be part of body of LAW , therefore, no demand of levy could be raised on basis of a dead statute---Validity---Any officer of Inland Revenue, to whom any power or function was delegated under S. 210 of Income TAX Ordinance, 2001 could also additionally exercise such powers and functions under provisions of Income Support Levy Act, 2013---Officer of Inland Revenue as defined in S. 2(1)(c) of Income Support Levy Act, 2013 read with S.2(38-A) of Income TAX Ordinance, 2001 could exercise powers under S. 5 of Income Support Levy Act, 2013, independently and without waiting specific delegation under S.210 of Income TAX Ordinance, 2001---Provisions of Income Support Levy Act, 2013 and Income Support Levy Rules, 2013 adequately catered for payment of levy, computation thereof, time and manner of payment---TAX payers failed to make out any case of procedural impropriety, lack of unfairness or absence of opportunity of hearing---Objections were solicited from TAX payers who chose to challenge demand notices before High Court by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction---TAX payers in cases where no orders were passed, could raise objections and same could be examined and decided by Officer of Inland Revenue except question of absence/want of jurisdiction---Irrespective of repeal of Income Support Levy Act, 2013, liability to pay levy subsisted with Officer of Inland Revenue who had rightly issued notices as he had jurisdiction to issue notices, assess payment of levy in accordance with rate prescribed and such officer could collect same accordingly---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.


Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1278 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE
Side Opponent : AMEER ABDULLAH KHAN ROKHARI
Ss.22 & 133---Chargeability of income TAX ---Income from business or profession---Non-competition fee---Nature of receipt of non-competition fee---"Revenue receipt" and "capital receipt"---Distinction---Onus on Department to establish chargeability of income TAX on capital receipt---Scope---Question before the High Court was whether "non-competition fee" received by TAX payer, for not competing with another entity, was "revenue receipt" chargeable to income TAX under S. 22 of the Income TAX Ordinance, 1979---Held, that non-competition fee was considered to be a "capital receipt" and in the present case, it was the sum TAX payer received by virtue of non-competition agreement whereby TAX payer had lost its source of income---Unlike a revenue receipt, which was a substitution of income and chargeable to TAX ; a capital receipt was received in exchange for source of income and was not chargeable to TAX unless specifically made TAX able by charging provision of a TAX ing LAW ---Unless such capital receipt was hit by charging provision of the Income TAX Ordinance of 1979, it could not be subjected to TAX ---Contention of Department that said competition fee was benefit "arising out of business" under S.22(c) of the Income TAX Ordinance, 1979 was not tenable as Department had failed to show that compensation for non-competition received by TAX payer had any nexus with any source of income TAX able under the LAW and the same was not covered by any charging provision of the Income TAX Ordinance, 1979 ---Reference was answered, accordingly.


Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1278 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE
Side Opponent : AMEER ABDULLAH KHAN ROKHARI
S.9---Chargeability of TAX ---Principles---Adjudication to determine whether TAX was chargeable on receipt of revenue / fee by TAX payer---Burden of proof---Scope---Anything which was not income could not be treated as income and receipt was not sole test of chargeability of TAX ---Initial burden to show that a receipt was income TAX able under LAW , was on Department and said burden of proof could not be shifted on the TAX payer---TAX payer could not be expected to quote any provision of LAW , which specifically declared that a sum received by TAX payer was exempt from TAX instead of Department specifying the charging provision purportedly covering it---One must look at the substance of something and not at the manner in which the account was stated.


Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1238 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TARIQ KOMBOH
Side Opponent : The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, FINANCE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Ss. 114(5) & 122-C---Return of income---Show-cause notice, issuance of---Limitation---Completed TAX year---Duration---TAX payer assailed show-cause notice issued by authorities on grounds that it was time barred due to conclusion of TAX year well before issuance of notice---Validity---Relevant TAX year could not be considered complete, for purposes of S. 114(5) of Income TAX Ordinance, 2001 on last day of next financial year or on date prescribed in terms of S. 118(2)(b) of Income TAX Ordinance, 2001 as same was illegal---Time would not run from date of default when return of income had to be normally submitted but to be reckoned from 30th day of June, for which period return of income had to be submitted but was not done---Interpretation put forward by authorities was erroneous and based on misapplication of LAW ---High Court declared notice issued under S. 114(4) of Income TAX Ordinance, 2001, show-cause notice under S. 122-C of Income TAX Ordinance, 2001 and consequent orders as issue/passed without LAW ful authority, beyond limitation and of no legal effect---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1213 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LYALLPUR ZONE, FAISALABAD
Side Opponent : IMRAN ALI LUBRICANTS
S. 21---Sales TAX Rules, 2006, R.12---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10A & 18---Blacklisting and suspension of registration of TAX payer---Exercise of discretion by Sales TAX Authorities---Vires of R. 12 of the Sales TAX Rules, 2006---Fundamental Rights to fair trial, due process of LAW and freedom of trade and business---Scope---Department impugned order passed by Single Judge of High Court in Constitutional petition whereby R. 12 of the Sales TAX Rules 2006 was declared to be ultra vires the Constitution to the extent of suspension of registration of TAX payer without prior notice---Validity---Rule 12 of the Sales TAX Rules, 2006 had been framed under authority of S. 21(2) of the Sales TAX , 1990 and said Rule conferred unbridled and unfettered powers to the concerned Commissioner to suspend registration of a TAX payer, without notice and without affording opportunity of hearing---Term "satisfaction" used in R. 12(a)(i) of the Sales TAX Rules, 2006 must be subject to preliminary inquiry and perusal of record so as to enable a person to upend the "satisfaction" already arrived by the Commissioner---Such suspension of registration offended principle of due process and Arts. 18 & 10A of the Constitution---No illegality therefore, existed in impugned order of Single Judge of the High Court---Intra-court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2019 PTD 884 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
Side Opponent : COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE
Ss. 47 & 46---Reference to High Court---Scope---Jurisdiction of High Court under S.47 of the Sales TAX Act, 1990---Notice---Question of LAW ---Scope---Order for remand by Appellate Tribunal---Scope---Order by Appellate Tribunal remanding a matter by observing that certain facts had not been determined by the forum below, which order did not determine anything finally and conclusively, would not generally give rise to any question of LAW to be determined by the High Court under S.47 of the Sales TAX Act, 1990---Such a reference to High Court would be premature, misconceived and not maintainable.


Citation Name : 2019 PTD 764 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL GHANI
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 74, 45-B & 46---LAW Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) S. 3(2) & proviso---Sales TAX ---Intra-court appeal---Order passed under S. 74 of the Sales TAX Act, 1990 for condonation of time-limit---Maintainability of intra-court appeal against such order---Scope--- Question before the High Court was whether intra-court appeal against an order passed under S.74 of the Sales TAX Act, 1990 was maintainable---Held, in order to determine maintainability of intra-court appeal, it had to be examined whether any appeal, revision or review was available under the applicable LAW which was the Sales TAX Act, 1990---Perusal of the Sales TAX Act, 1990 revealed that no such right of appeal, revision or review was provided for in either S. 45-B or 46 of the Sales TAX Act ,1990 against order passed in exercise of powers under S. 74 of the Sales TAX Act, 1990---Intra-court appeal was therefore, in circumstances, maintainable.

Related Case Laws

Defence Saving Certificates Rules, 1966

Defence Saving Certificates Rules, 1966

calling for further inquiry

calling for further inquiry

Interim/interlocutory orders of the Appellate Tribunal---Constitutional…

Interim/interlocutory orders of the Appellate Tribunal---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court-

Past and closed transaction

Past and closed transaction

TAX on income of certain persons from dividends and…

TAX on income of certain persons from dividends and bank profits, etc

TAX on income of certain persons from dividends and…

TAX on income of certain persons from dividends and bank profits, etc

Judgment of the Supreme Court as 'definite information

Judgment of the Supreme Court as 'definite information

Essential elements/components of Clause 86, Part 1…

Essential elements/components of Clause 86, Part 1 of Second Schedule to the Income TAX Ordinance, 1979…

Retrospective effect

Retrospective effect

Where two reasonable interpretations of an exemption…

Where two reasonable interpretations of an exemption were possible, the one against the TAX payer and…

Raw material imported by a "manufacturer" for his…

Raw material imported by a "manufacturer" for his own consumption

Payment for goods and services

Payment for goods and services

Contact Us