DR. ASHFAQ AHMAD KHAN versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PESHAWAR
Section 177, 122 (8) 122 (9) and 133 Reference of the High Court to the selection of the case for audit The taxpayers postponed their selection of the case for audit on the issue because of any notice before and during it. Had not been issued and he had been refusing to select any case for audit tax on the basis of any matter seeking the powers under Sections 122 (8), 122 (9) and 177 of the Tax Ordinance 2001 Unheard. The Commissioner Income Tax was required not only to mention the reasons and validity (final information) for such an election, but also to provide taxpayers an opportunity to be heard and to give notice to the taxpayers before the law. Notice should also have been given. Before the action was taken, the person concerned was settled and no one was considered to be heard under the principles of natural justice against whom the action should be taken, provided the notice was read in every law. No such clause was included except that the Commissioner was obliged to issue notices to the Income Tax Reviewer / Taxpayer, before the Ordinance Selection 122 and 177 of the Taxpayers case for audit. The exercise of his powers under the jurisdiction was invalid and all subsequent orders against the taxpayers were illegal. They were the ones who lacked the necessary equipment required by law and were misappropriating the use of personal interests and, therefore, were not the cause of the fraudulent high court's choice of audit of taxpayers by illegal, Declared invalid and non-existent and observed that the new action against taxpayers was in accordance with the law.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
