Pakistan Case Law
1992 PTD 1411

Messrs INTER-OCEAN CARGO SERVICES, KARACHI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1992 PTD 1411
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.C.P. No,D-1045 of 1992
Date1992-05-28
Judge(s)Nasir Aslam Zahid, CJ and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui
Authored byNasir Aslam Zahid
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed by Messrs Inter-Ocean Cargo Services, Karachi, against the Federation of Pakistan and others, seeking interim relief regarding tax recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether interim relief should be granted to the petitioner to restrain the tax authorities from enforcing a tax demand and recovering funds from the petitioner's bank account, specifically where a notice had already been issued to the bank under the relevant tax statute. The Court, following the precedent set in similar matters, held that the department should be restrained from enforcing the demand under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, the Court ordered that if the department had not yet recovered the funds from the Allied Bank of Pakistan pursuant to the notice issued under Section 92 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, no further recovery action should be taken against the petitioner pending the final adjudication of the petition. The principle established is that interim relief may be granted to stay recovery proceedings even after a notice of attachment has been issued to a third party.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the High Court grant interim relief to restrain tax authorities from enforcing a demand under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the issuance of a notice under Section 92 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, to a bank preclude the court from granting interim relief to the taxpayer?
  • Is the department restrained from further recovery action if the amount has not yet been recovered from the bank pursuant to a notice under Section 92 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 80-C, Income Tax Ordinance 1979
  • Section 92, Income Tax Ordinance 1979
interim relieftax recoveryincome taxattachment of bank accountconstitutional petitionstay of recovery

ORDER

1. ' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, CJ.---In all other similar matters interim relief has been granted. However, in this case, according to the learned counsel, notice has been issued under section 92 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by the department to Allied Bank of Pakistan, Limited, West Wharf Branch, Karachi to remit the amount lying to the credit of the petitioner to the department. In a similar matter, in spite of the notice under section 92 having been issued, we had passed the order of granting interim relief. The other petition is C.P. No,D-198 of 1992, and copy of the order, dated 3-2- 1992 passed in that matter has been filed alongwith this petition. The department is restrained from enforcing the demand under section 80-C, and in case the amount has not yet been recovered by the department from A.B.L., West Wharf, Branch, Karachi pursuant to notice under section 92 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 further action will not be taken by the department for the recovery of such amount. Miscellaneous Application No,2056 of 1992 is disposed of.

Cited by 7 cases

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