CHENONE STORES LTD. THROUGH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FINANCE ACCOUNTS) versus FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH CHAIRMAN
Sections 177 (1), 214c and 120 (1) (b) of the Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Sections 25 (2) and 72b of the Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), Sections 46 (1) and 42B Audit of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution, Section 177 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 [First time] Power of Commissioner to select any person / taxpayer for audit without constitutional standard (Internal Revenue) Selection; Section 25 (2) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 and Section 46 (1) of the Federal Excise Act 2005 Constitutional Audit, the purpose of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, under section 177 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 Submitting Requests for Audit with Unwanted Notices. And respectively under Sections 25 and 46 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, whereby applicants were selected for their tax affairs audits and were instructed to submit their records for further investigation. The destiny of the applicants was that the taxpayers were to be selected for their tax affairs audit. Equal clauses were barred and thus not lawful, and the Federal Board of Revenue (Board) was empowered to select cases for audit, and the Commissioner's powers were merely to conduct taxpayer audits. In section 177 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, the accuracy of the board was used to proceed with Aga in the present case, after selecting the cases by Provo. Specific taxpayers investigating the dark rotation of their tax affairs, hoping to reveal tax violations, said that nothing was detected or stated in the notice against the applicants but instead Only the record was called
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
