Mian HANIF MUNNO O through his Legal Heirs vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' reference applications regarding tax liabilities. The core legal question concerned the finality of the tax demand and the potential for associated penalties or criminal proceedings. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioners conceded to the tax department's claim, agreeing to pay the demanded sum of Rs. 17,76,462 in full and final settlement. The respondent department consented to this arrangement, provided the payment was made by the specified deadline. The Court, noting the consensus between the parties, converted the petitions into appeals and disposed of them accordingly. The holding of the Court was that the petitioners must deposit the agreed amount by 30-6-2001, failing which the petitions would be deemed dismissed. Crucially, the Court accepted the department's concessional statement that, upon payment, no criminal proceedings would be initiated, and no additional tax or penalty would be recovered from the petitioners in relation to the subject notice.
- Can the Supreme Court dispose of a petition for leave to appeal based on a settlement reached between the parties?
- Does a court have the authority to preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings and the recovery of additional penalties when parties reach a settlement regarding tax liabilities?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR AHMAD CHAUDHARY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 5-10- 2000 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Reference Applications Nos. 50/88, 51/88, 52/88 and 53/88 filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he does not want to press the petitions and to end the controversy concedes to the claim of the department and is ready to make payment as has been demanded in the notice, dated 16-2-1986 i,e, Rs,17,76,462 towards full and final A settlement of the account in this behalf. However, he seeks indulgence of the Court that the department be directed not to charge any penalty or additional tax or to initiate any criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/caveat or is present and stated that the department has no objection if the petitions are disposed of in view of the statement so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. We have heard both of them and have also gone through the contents of the notice, dated 16-2- 1986. Since the petitioners have conceded to the claim of the respondent, therefore, in view of the above position we direct that let the petitioners deposit the above amount on or before 30-6-2001, failing which the above petitions shall be deemed to have been dismissed. We also observe that as the petitioners have conceded the claim of the department, therefore, we are inclined to accept the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners keeping in view concessional statement of the learned counsel for the department that in relation to the above notice no criminal proceedings will be initiated against the petitioners nor any additional tax or penalty will be recovered from them in future. Thus, under this arrangement, instant petitions with the consent of the parties are converted into appeals and disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.