‘Unjust’ levy: Calling Mr Taxman to court

PHC summons revenue head to explain wedding hall taxes.


Our Correspondent March 06, 2014
PHC summons revenue head to explain wedding hall taxes. PHOTO:FILE

PESHAWAR:


The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday summoned the chief commissioner of Inland Revenue to appear in person on March 13 in a case regarding the collection of multiple taxes from owners of wedding halls.


The order was issued by a division bench comprising Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Qaiser Rashid Khan. The bench was informed by petitioner Khalid Ayub’s counsel Ishaq Ali Qazi that the government has imposed various types of taxes payable by wedding hall owners.

Qazi said the federal and provincial governments have imposed separate taxes. He told the bench that the chief commissioner of Inland Revenue has already informed the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) government that the collection of these taxes comes under the Federal Board of Revenue’s jurisdiction. However, Qazi informed the bench, after the 18th Amendment in the Constitution the provincial government has the authority to collect these taxes but it is yet to constitute a mechanism for doing so.

The bench, after hearing the arguments, ordered the main taxman to appear in person at the next hearing and explain his position in the case.

On February 25, the court had directed the attorney general of Pakistan and advocate general of K-P to appear in person and assist the court in a case in which the petitioner had challenged the collection of three types of taxes from owners of such halls.

The order was issued by a two-member division bench of Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Malik Manzoor Hussain. The bench was then informed by lawyers Ishaq Ali Zaqi and Zulfiqar Khalil that the federal government has imposed 10% federal income tax, 10% food tax and 16% sales tax on owners of wedding halls.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 6th, 2014.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ