Pakistan Case Law
2006 PTD 2207

KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD., KARACHI vs ADDITIONAL

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 PTD 2207
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Constitutional Petition No, 1940 of 2000
Date2001-01-02
Judge(s)Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a constitutional petition filed by Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd. against an impugned order dated 9-10-2000 and a recovery notice dated 8-12-2000. The core legal question concerns the protection of a taxpayer from coercive recovery actions while their statutory appeal is pending adjudication before the appellate tribunal, but cannot be heard due to the non-availability of a Member Technical. The court holds that the petitioner's request is reasonable and directs the respondents to refrain from taking any adverse action or recovery measures against the petitioner based on the impugned order and notice until the pending appeal is taken up for hearing by the appellate tribunal. The key principle laid down is that a taxpayer should not be prejudiced or subjected to coercive recovery while their statutory appeal remains pending through no fault of their own due to the quorum or operational deficiencies of the appellate forum.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether recovery action can be restrained when a statutory appeal is pending before the tribunal but cannot be heard due to the non-availability of a member?
  • Is it competent for the High Court to direct authorities not to take adverse action against a taxpayer during the pendency of an appeal before the tribunal?
constitutional petitionsales tax appealrecovery noticepending appealadverse actionappellate tribunal

ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal being Sales Tax Appeal No,308 of 2000 against the impugned order, dated 9-10-2000 and such appeal is pending before respondent No,3 but due to the non-availability of Member Technical the same is not being taken up for hearing. Learned counsel further contends that he will be satisfied if this petition is disposed of with the observations that till the above referred appeal filed by the petitioner is taken up by the Tribunal no adverse action shall be taken against the petitioner on the basis of impugned order, dated 9-10-2000 and further notice, dated 8-12-2000. The submission made by the learned counsel appears to be reasonable. Accordingly, we order that the respondents shall not take any adverse action against the petitioners on the basis of impugned order, dated 9-10-2000 and recovery notice, dated 8-12-2000 till the appeal of the petitioner is taken up for hearing by respondent No,3.

2. ' With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of along with pending application.

Cited by 24 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.