MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI.--(1). This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.3.2013, passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers, whereby W.P.
No. 410 of 2012 filed by the present appellant was dismissed by holding that Sections 25 & 72-B of the Sales Tax Act are independent Sections. Similarly, Sections 46 & 42-B of Federal Excise Act are to independent Sections. It was further observed that the Commissioner can exercise his authority independently and no prior selection is required.
2.T he grievance of the appellant is that it is only the Federal Board of Revenue empowered under Section 72-B & 42-B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and Federal Excise Act, 2005, who can select the case for audit and, therefore, any proceedings conducted by the Commissioner or Addl.
Commissioner are illegal and the notices issued are also illegal and against the provisions of law.
3. Leamed counsel while placing reliance upon case law PTCL 2013 CL. 1 submits that Federal Board of Revenue is empowered to select cases for audit and the powers of the Commissioner are restricted to mere conducting of the audit of the taxpayers, after the cases has been selected by the Board. Taxpayer would first be selected for audit under Section 214-C of the Ordinance by the Federal Board of Revenue and only then the Commissioner can conduct its audit in accordance with procedure given in Section 171 of the Ordinance. In this respect learned counsel also referred to PTCL 2010 CL. 827. It has further been contended that provisions of notice to a person, against whom one proposes to proceed has to be read with every statue irrespective of the fact no such provision is incorporated therein. It has also been contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appraise the wisdom laid down in Mubashar Hassan's case PLD 2010 Supreme Court 265, wherein all ex-facie discriminatory provisions were held to be violative of fundamental rights.
4. War id Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.I.R., etc. CL. 333 [Mr. Chief Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi]
5. The minute perusal of Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act & Section 46 of the Federal Excise Act, shows that the officer of Inland Revenue authorized by the Commissioner, on the basis of the record, obtained under sub-section (1) may, once in a year conduct audit & the power of conducting the audit has been delegated to the Commissioner under these to Sections.
6. We do agree with the findings of learned Single Judge in Chambers that by insertion of Section 72-B of the Sales Tax Act, and 42-B of Federal Excise Act, additional power has been given to the Board and it is to ensure check in the tax system and the intent of the legislature is not the one as claimed by the appellant.
7. The learned Single Judge discussed all the aspects of the case and we find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed in limine.