MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
This Intra Court Appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against a show-cause notice issued by the tax authorities. The core legal question is whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a mere show-cause notice before any adverse order is passed or substantive rights are infringed. The Lahore High Court held that a show-cause notice does not infringe substantive rights, that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked on mere apprehensions of coercive action, and that bypassing departmental remedies by rushing to the High Court against a notice is deprecated as it hampers the recovery of revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, maintaining the single bench's order.
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a mere show-cause notice?
- Can the High Court interfere in constitutional jurisdiction on the basis of a mere apprehension of coercive action?
- Does the issuance of a show-cause notice infringe a substantive right?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' Through this ICA, the Appellant has impugned order dated 19.1.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No,1521/2017.
2. The basic grievance of the Appellant is that show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant on 19.5.2016 which show cause notice as per the arguments of the learned counsel was illegal and could not be issued.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel was confronted with the fact that it is just a show cause notice in which the Appellant was asked to submit his reply and relevant documents. Learned counsel argued that the reply and relevant documents have been submitted, however the matter is still pending.
4. Under the circumstances at this stage no adverse order has been passed against the Appellant.
The Appellant should file his reply and any legal objection that he may have can be decided by the Respondents. The Appellant apprehends that under the garb of show cause notice, the Respondents will take coercive action against the Appellant. This is nothing but an apprehension by the Appellant and this Court in constitutional jurisdiction does not act upon mere apprehension.
Furthermore it is just a notice and no substantive right is being infringed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan' has held in the case titled Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Faisalabad and others v. Messrs Punjab Beverage Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (2007 PTD 1347) that tendency of by-passing the remedy provided under law, and resort to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was deprecated. In view of the contents of the notice the Department only contemplates to take action against them. The petitioner instead of rushing to the High Court and consuming sufficient time should have submitted reply before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court. We have held in the judgment that such practice is to be deprecated because if merely on the basis of show-cause notice proceedings are started then in such position department would never be in a position to proceed with the cases particularly the recovery of revenue etc. Thus keeping in view the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that respondent had wrongly availed remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution.
5. Under the circumstances, the instant appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 19.1.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge is maintained.
Cited by 4 cases
- M/s The Hub Power Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Inland 2023 IHC 262
- Omer Flour Mills vs Government Of Punjab and others PTCL 2021 CL. 640, 2021 PTD 275
- Reliance Commodities (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others 2020 PTD 1464, 2020 PLD Lahore 632, 2020 LHC 1266, 2020 PLJ Lahore 420
- MARI PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager Finance, Islamabad vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others 2019 PTD 1774