2017 PLP 803 (PTD)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
| Citation | 2017 PLP 803 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ayesha A. Malik and Jawad Hassan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 803 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 803 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ayesha A. Malik and Jawad Hassan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 803 (PTD) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basharat Ali Janjua for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Petitioner had impugned the order whereby his Constitutional petition against show-cause notice issued by authorities was dismissed
No adverse order had been passed against the petitioner and the petitioner should have filed reply and legal objections to the show-cause notice, which would be decided by the authorities
Apprehension that under garb of show-case notice, coercive action would be taken against the petitioner was nothing but an apprehension and High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction did not act upon mere apprehension
Show-cause notice was just a notice and no substantive right had been infringed
Intra-court appeal of petitioner was dismissed, in circumstances. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Faisalabad and others v. Messrs Punjab Beverage Company (Pvt.) Ltd. 2007 PTD 1347 rel.
Judgment & Decree
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. KMZ/M-11/L Appeal dismissed.