GHAZI BAROTHA CONTRACTORS, ATTOCK versus DISTRICT OFFICER EXCISE AND TAXATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, ATTOCK
RR 4 and 8 Finance Act (V of 1989), Section 7 (7) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application on the receipt of additional capital value tax (CVT) notice of the District Officer Excise and Tax Tax Frustrated over the notice issued for receipt of additional CVT validity where CVT was not received under R4 of Capital Value Tax Rules 1990 for any reason, Deputy Commissioner of the Wealth Tax Wealth Tax Act, 1963 , And the reason for having jurisdiction over the buyer or transfer matter may be declared under R8. Capital Value Tax Rules, 1990, Registration Authority, Manufacturer, Buyer or Interchange, which by default reviews and is hereby designated by the Central Board of Revenue, under section 7 (7) of the Finance Act 1989 May take action to collect tax as an officer. The role of the District Officer Excise and Taxation was non-existent in the matter when the Deputy Commissioner Wealth Tax decided to take action in this case under Capital Rules 1990 R8. d Decision by a competent authority. The successor to the Deputy Commissioner's Wealth Tax Office, to determine if additional taxes were due, if so, declared the notice issued by the District Officer Excise and Taxation without legal authorization. Went and the High Court directed that the matter should be decided by the successor in the office of the Deputy Commissioner Wealth Tax, which would provide the applicant with a hearing, as well as the District Officer's Excise and Taxation Petition. Were also dealt with accordingly.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
