OCEAN PAKISTAN LIMITED through Chief Executive Officer vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice and 3 others

ORDER

SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court by way of filing instant writ petition, with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this honourable Court may kindly:--

(I) Declare that section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, giving appellate powers to the respondent No.3, is ultra vires Articles 9, 10-A and 175 of the constitution and thus, liable to be struck down and declared unconstitutional;

(II) Declare that section 130(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 whereby employees of Inland Revenue are appointed as accountant members of Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal, is ultra vires Articles 9, 10-A and 175 of the Constitution and thus, liable to be struck down and declared unconstitutional;

(III) Restrain the respondents from recovery till the time the disputed tax liability can be conclusively decided by an independent Tribunal outside the tax hierarchy:

(IV) Suspend the operation of the impugned Notice dated 29-5-2012 during the pendency of the titled petition and the respondents may kindly be restrained from taking any coercive measures against the petitioner; and

(V) Any other relief that this honourable Court deems appropriate, under the circumstances of this petition, may also very kindly be granted.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned notice dated 29-5-2012 has been issued with mala fide intention, ulterior motives and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that since viries of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 have been challenged, therefore, instant writ petition is maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for respondents put appearance at the preliminary stage and by waving notice submitted that through device of instant writ petition, petitioner just wants restraining order from recovery of tax. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that writ petition is not maintainable as petitioner has an alternate remedy under the statute.

4. In support of prayer with regard to vires of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, learned counsel failed to make out, his case on the touchstone of Article 8 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, justifying the interference by this court. Apparently, move of petitioner, in putting challenge to vires of the Ordinance after about 11 years is with the object to escape from the liability of the payment of Income Tax. The High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction; cannot trammel the proceedings commenced on the mandate of a statute, more particularly when said statute itself provides the remedies to the aggrieved persons. .