Pakistan Case Law
1989 PTD 1184

Mian AZIZUDDIN and another vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 PTD 1184
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,914 of 1981
Date1988-07-19
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultPetition dismissed
Summary

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against an interim order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition, wherein the Tax Recovery Officer directed the petitioners to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Tax Recovery Officer within fifteen days to avoid arrest for arrears of income tax, as the attached property was insufficient to clear the dues. The core legal question concerns the legality and propriety of the interim direction requiring the petitioners to furnish security as a condition to prevent arrest. The Supreme Court held that the direction for furnishing security was neither against any law nor propriety. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that interim protective directions requiring security in tax recovery proceedings are lawful and proper.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an interim direction by the court requiring a tax defaulter to furnish security to avoid arrest is lawful?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order directing security for tax arrears when the attached property is insufficient?
income taxtax recoveryinterim orderfurnishing securitywrit petitionleave to appeal

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the following interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition:- "It is stated by the Tax Recovery Officer that the property attached is not sufficient to clear of all the arrears of income tax which are due from the petitioners. If the petitioners furnish security to the satisfaction of Tax Recovery Officer they shall not be arrested. They shall furnish security within fifteen days. Let the main writ petition be listed for hearing in the third week of September, 1981."

2. ' When questioned as to what is the grievance of the petitioners, the learned counsel stated that it relates to the direction for furnishing of security.

3. After hearing the learned counsel in support of this petition, we are satisfied that the direction for security in the impugned order was neither against any law nor propriety. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

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