MESSRS MEHTAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED, SAHIWAL VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE-16, COMPANIES ZONE-I, LAHORE
2002 P T D 324
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar, J
Messrs MEHTAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED, SAHIWAL through Chief Executive
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE-16, COMPANIES ZONE-I, LAHORE and 3 others
Writ Petition No. 20763 of 2000, heard on /01/.
th
September, 2001. (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Distinct from Appellate jurisdiction---Fact alone that after the order of Tribunal, assessee has no further remedy to avail will not require the High Court to sit as a Court of Appeal while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction to decide contentious matters both on fact as well as on law---Where the law contemplates an end to proceedings after a decision in appeal or revision, the High Court will not convert itself into a Court of further appeal if the law has not provided one.
(b) Finance Act (XII of 1991)---
----S. 12(vi)---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 234 & Fifth Sched.---Corporate Assets Tax---Work in progress---Work in progress has to be included in the assets of the assessee-Company on a particular date and reflected in the balance-sheet for the purposes of Corporate Assets Tax---Revenue Authorities were justified in resorting to Fifth Sched. in the Companies Ordinance, 1984 in circumstances.
Naveed A. Andrabi for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th September, 2001.
JUDGMENT
This Constitutional petition seeks a declaration that order passed by respondent No. 3 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on 21-2-2001 is unlawful and of no legal effect. 'It is also prayed that respondent No. 3 should be directed to rehear the issue with specific reference to section 12(12)(b)(d) of the Finance Act, 1991.
2. On 29-6-1999 the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax Circle-16 Companies Zone-I, Lahore framed an assessment under section 12(vi) of the Finance Act, 1991. Section 12 of the Act provided for the charge of a tax to be known as "Corporate Assets Tax in respect of the value of assets held by a company on the specified date". The Assessing Officer found that the petitioner had assets at Rs. 5,48,06,163 and capital work in progress at Rs. 88,60,654. Finding that their value exceeded the exempted limit of 50 millions as given in the aforesaid Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessment and to raise a demand of Rs. 38,94,000. This assessment was framed in the second round inasmuch as the one framed in the earlier round was set aside by the Member (Judicial) C.B.R. The order so framed was maintained by the CIT(Appeals) on 1-11-1999 though he allowed partial relief in the form of deletion of additional tax and penalty.
3. On further appeal before the Tribunal, nothing went right for the petitioner who lost on all grounds. Its appeal was rejected in toto on 21-7-2000.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal as well as the departmental authorities wrongly interpreted the vital phrases as used and defined in section 12 of the Finance Act, 1991. The phrases "specific date" and the "value of assets" are particularly identified to claim that assessment in respect of assessee had wrongly been framed. It is also stated that the value of "work in progress" could not be included for the purpose of the aforesaid levy.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties; I am of the view that the prayer made in the petition cannot possibly be allowed. In exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in pointing out that after the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has no further remedy to avail. However, that fact alone will not require this Court to sit as a Court of appeal while exercising Constitutional Jurisdiction to decide contentious matters both on fact as well as on application of certain provisions of law in the given facts. Where the law contemplates an end to proceedings after a decision in appeal or revision, this Court will not convert itself into a Court of further appeal where the law has not provided one.
6. The interpretation of the aforesaid phrases as made by the revenue authorities as well as the learned Tribunal does not amount to a jurisdictional fact which can possibly be corrected in Constitutional jurisdiction. After framing of an assessment and its travel through at least two appellate forums sufficiently fulfills requirements of law as well as fairness and justice. Whether an assessee had a capital assets of certain value on a certain date can hardly be a moot point for consideration in writ jurisdiction. The argument that work in progress could not be included in the assets held by the company and that revenue had wrongly made resort to the balance sheet .requirements as prescribed in the 5th Schedule read with section 234 of the Companies Ordinance, even if accepted will not justify an interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. In fact the issue being raised and attempted to be mooted now may not have been a good ground for interference even if this Court was sitting as a Court of appeal.
7. Lastly, I am otherwise not convinced as to why the work in progress could not be included in the assets of the assessee-company on a particular date. The petitioner has not been able to cite either any treatise or an authoritative precedent to show that work in progress cannot be included in the assets of a company and reflected accordingly in the balance sheet. The Revenue Authorities appear justified in making resort to the said Schedule to the Companies Ordinance, 1982 as also the accounting standards and requirements to prepare a balance sheet and profit and loss account.
8. That being so this Constitutional petition cannot succeed.
Dismissed.
C.M.A./M.A.K./M-837/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.