Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Quetta V. M/s. Saindak Metals Ltd. Quetta, Tax Year 2006,
PLJ 2022 Quetta 168 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a dispute over whether the tax authorities could amend an income tax assessment years after the original return was filed, based on a change in the law governing time limits.
Saindak Metals Ltd, a government-owned company, filed its tax return for the 2006 tax year in December 2006, declaring a loss. This was treated as a deemed assessment. In June 2012, the tax department issued an amended assessment creating a substantial tax demand of over Rs. 404 million, arguing the original assessment was erroneous and harmful to revenue. The company successfully appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which ruled the 2012 amendment was issued too late and was therefore invalid.
The key legal question was about limitation periods. Originally, the law gave tax authorities five years from the date an assessment was issued to amend it. A 2009 amendment changed this slightly, making the five-year period run from the end of the financial year in which the assessment was issued, rather than from the exact issuance date. The tax department argued this amendment should apply retrospectively to extend their deadline. The company argued the amendment could only apply going forward.
The Balochistan High Court agreed with the company. It held that once a limitation period begins running under old law, it becomes a "closed transaction" for the taxpayer, and changes affecting such substantive rights cannot be applied backward unless the law clearly says so. Since the five-year deadline (calculated under the original law) had already expired before the 2012 amendment order, it was time-barred. The appeal by tax authorities was dismissed, reinforcing that
یہ مقدمہ اس تنازع سے متعلق تھا کہ آیا ٹیکس حکام اصل گوشوارہ جمع کرائے جانے کے برسوں بعد، وقتی حد کے قانون میں تبدیلی کی بنیاد پر، انکم ٹیکس کی تشخیص میں ترمیم کر سکتے ہیں۔
سائنڈک میٹلز لمیٹڈ، جو ایک سرکاری ملکیتی کمپنی ہے، نے ٹیکس سال 2006 کے لیے دسمبر 2006 میں اپنا گوشوارہ جمع کرایا تھا جس میں خسارہ ظاہر کیا گیا تھا۔ اسے ایک ڈیمڈ (تصوراتی) تشخیص سمجھا گیا۔ جون 2012 میں ٹیکس محکمے نے ایک ترمیم شدہ تشخیص جاری کی جس کے تحت 40 کروڑ 40 لاکھ روپے سے زائد کا بھاری ٹیکس مطالبہ قائم کیا گیا، اور یہ موقف اختیار کیا گیا کہ اصل تشخیص غلط تھی اور محصولات کے لیے نقصان دہ تھی۔ کمپنی نے اپیلیٹ ٹریبونل میں کامیاب اپیل کی، جس نے فیصلہ دیا کہ 2012 کی یہ ترمیم بہت تاخیر سے جاری کی گئی تھی اور اس لیے کالعدم تھی۔
بنیادی قانونی سوال وقتی حد (limitation) کی مدت کے بارے میں تھا۔