ISLAMABAD: Sindh High Court (SHC) will initiate proceedings against Chief Commissioner Corporate Tax Office (CTO), Inland Revenue, Karachi if the court is not satisfied with his conduct and the response while finally deciding the petition in a sales tax matter.
According to an order of the SHC issued against Chief Commissioner, CTO, Karachi, it is a matter of concern that on the one hand the provision of appeal against a suspension order has been omitted by way of Finance Act 2024 and instead a revisional authority has been created under Section 21(5) ibid; but the authority itself does not want to work and decide the issue of suspension on the pretext that the blacklisting is still pending.
Such conduct of the Revisional Authority does not appear to be in consonance with the very provision of section 21(5) read with section 21(2) of the Sales Tax Act in question. If that is so, then they are barred from raising any objection as to availing alternate remedy in such matters.
SHC dismisses pleas challenging sections relating to windfall tax
Pursuant to order passed by the SHC, Zahid Masood, Chief Commissioner CTO, Inland Revenue, Karachi is in attendance along with his counsel.
Through this petition, the petitioner has impugned an Order in Revision (wrongly mentioned as review order) whereby the Petitioner’s Revision Application under Section 21(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 has been disposed of merely on the
ground that the concerned Commissioner after suspension of the sales tax registration has initiated blacklisting proceedings which are pending, hence, no final revisional order could be passed in respect of suspension of sales tax registration as the said proceedings have not yet reached its logical conclusion.
At the same time the Petitioner has been asked to approach the concerned Commissioner for finally deciding the blacklisting proceedings.
The SHC is afraid this contention of the Chief Commissioner prima facie does not appear to be correct inasmuch as there is only one remedy against an order of suspension of sales tax registration passed under Section 21(2) of the Act in question by way of a revision, and it is against the order of suspension and blacklisting independently and not conjunctively as interpreted by the Chief
Commissioner. Moreover, a registered person cannot be kept remediless against an order of suspension pending final decision on the issue of blacklisting. It is also a matter of fact that for suspension of a sales tax registration a pre-suspension notice is issued, whereas for blacklisting purposes a separate show cause notice is issued.
Therefore, this stance of the Respondents is also not justified. It is further noted that earlier the suspension was impugned by way of petition No-D-697 of 2025 and petitioner was confronted as to availing the alternate remedy of revision and the Court was informed that the Chief Commissioner is not passing any orders.
The said petition was disposed of on the assurance of the Chief Commissioner/Commissioner that a final speaking order will be passed within a week’s time. Thereafter the impugned order in revision has been filed whereby no final decision has been taken.
This conduct of the Chief Commissioner, if not contumacious, then at least is an attempt to deceive the Court by unnecessary dragging the matter and leaving the Petitioner remediless till such time the blacklisting proceedings are finalized. He has been vested with these revisional powers to redress the grievance of aggrieved taxpayers and not to drag them with such orders.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments