Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 384 of 1972, decided on 3rd May 1973.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 23rd June 1972, in Civil Revision No. 506 of 1968).
Ss. 67, 30 & 33‑A‑Act, a complete code by itself‑Assessment, grievance against‑Can be remedied within four corners of Act‑Civil suit not competent under S.67.
Raleigh Investment Company Ltd. v. Governor‑General‑in -Council P L D 1947 P C 19 and Commissioner of Income‑tax, West Punjab v. Tribune Trust P L D 1947 P C 247 ref.
Wasim Sajjad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sh. Abdul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iflikharuddin Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 3rd May 1973.
.‑The authorised and paid‑up share capital of the petitioner‑company includes preference share capital of rupees one crore divided into one lac shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each. The preference shareholders are entitled to a dividend, subject to tax, at the rate of 7 % per annum. There was a contractual arrangement between the shareholders and the petitioner‑company as a result of which the shareholders, in fact, received dividends at the rate of 5.25 % of preference shares. The amount released by payment of a lesser dividend became available for payment to other shareholders and to meet other require ments of the Company. On the 8th November 196', the respondent issued a notice requiring the Company to deposit the amount of income‑tax allegedly withheld by it from dividend payable to the preference shareholders by the 30th November 1967, in the Government Treasury. He threatened to take action under section 18(7) of the Act by adopting coercive measurgs.
The petitioner challenged the action of the respondent by filing a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. Along, with the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX, rule 2 read with section 151, C. P. C. This application was rejected by order dated the 23rd December 1967. The petitioner ‑challenged this order in appeal before the District Judge, Lahore, which was accepted on the 2nd April 1968. The order of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, was set aside and the respondent was restrained from receiving any tax from the petitioner‑company on the dividend paid to its preference shareholders till the decision of the suit.
The respondent filed Civil Revision No. 506 of 1968 against the order of the District Judge, Lahore, and the revision petition was accepted by order dated the 23rd June 1972. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
Mr. Wasim Sajjad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the learned Single Judge has not properly construed the provision of section 18(10) of the Income‑tax Act. Under that section, a person is obliged to pay any sum collected as tax to the Central Government except when such deduction is permitted by the Income‑tax Act. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner never deducted any sum from the dividend payable to the preference shareholders as tax. It is contended that a lesser dividend was paid on account of contractual arrangement between the Company and the shareholders under which the shareholders were liable to share the income‑tax liability of the Company. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us.
In the first place, prima facie, a suit does not lie under section 67 of the Income‑tax Act. The Income‑tax Act is a com plete Code by itself and any grievance in regard to the assessment can be remedied within the four corners of that Act. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in relying on the cases of Raleigh Investment Company Ltd. v. Governor‑General‑in‑Council (P L D 1947 P C 19) and Commissioner of Income‑tax, West Punjab v. Tribune Trust (P L D 1947 P C 247). Besides, the petitioner had a remedy under the Income‑tax Act under sections 30 and 33‑A.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in set ting aside the order of the Additional District Judge and in accept ing the revision petition. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer