Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karachi vs M/S. Occidental Petroleum
This matter involves appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had disposed of the respondents' appeals by relying on a previous judgment of the same High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in disposing of the instant cases based on a prior precedent without considering the specific statutory provisions applicable to the current dispute, particularly the effect of Section 163(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The appellant argued that the legal issues in the instant cases were distinct from those in the relied-upon precedent. The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the cases were indeed distinguishable and that the High Court should have adjudicated them independently, taking into account the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the Income Tax Rules, 1982. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matters to the High Court for a fresh decision to be rendered expeditiously within three months.
- Can a High Court dispose of an appeal by relying on a previous judgment without considering the specific statutory provisions applicable to the current case?
- Does the consent of a departmental counsel to a specific mode of disposal preclude the department from raising a question of law in appeal?
- Is a case required to be remanded when the High Court fails to independently consider the relevant statutory provisions applicable to the specific facts of the dispute?
- Section 163(2), Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 241, Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Rule 20, Income Tax Rules 1982
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. These appeals by leave of the Court have been filed against the judgment dated 7th February, 2002 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi.
2. Learned counsel for appellant, learned Deputy Attorney General who appeared on- Court notice and the Member Tax, Central Board of Revenues contended that the High Court had pronounced the judgment on the basis of an earlier judgment of the same High Court dated 24th February, 1999 passed in ITA No. 192 of 1997 without taking into consideration the effect of sub-section (2) of Section 163 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. According to them the points involved in both the cases are' distinct from each other.
3. When we inquired from them whether the counsel for the department had consented for the disposal of appeals and now they can agitate the same points, it was explained by them as a question of law is involved, therefore, the consent given by the department counsel will be meaningless under the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that there is a distinction in both the cases and learned High Court may have disposed of these cases independently, taking into consideration the effect of-Section 163(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance as well as other provisions of law i.e. Section 241 read with Rule 20 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982.
Thus for the foregoing reasons appeals are allowed, impugned judgment dated 7th February, 2002 is set aside and cases are remanded to the High Court for disposal of appeals afresh, expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of three months keeping in view the above observation.