2026 PLP 123 (PTD)
Messrs POPULAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
| Citation | 2026 PLP 123 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, ACJ and Muhammad Abdur Rahman, J |
| Parties | Messrs POPULAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others |
| Primary Law | (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (c) Discretion |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 123 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (c) Discretion as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 123 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, ACJ and Muhammad Abdur Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 123 (PTD) (Messrs POPULAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Raheem Lakhani along with Atta Muhammad Qureshi and Suneel Memon for Petitioners.
- Ayaz Sarwar Jamali for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.11(5)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Issuance of show cause notice, challenge to
Constitutional petition
Delay in issuance of show-cause notice
Show-cause notice was impugned on the ground that same was time barred
Reasons assigned for extension of time could not extend limitation as provided under S.11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, whereas, the other argument that matter was under consideration in audit also did not entitle respondents to seek extension in the limitation either on the excuse of audit or delay in any other manner
Show-cause notice was time barred, whereas, the law as to limitation was settled
Cardinal principle of law was that all were equal before law, whether a citizen or State, and if a law prescribed time period for recovery of money, after its lapse, recovery was not enforceable through Courts
Since it was not in dispute that show-cause notice was hopelessly time barred, hence without jurisdiction, therefore, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction notice of same was taken by the High Court, and by doing so, the impugned show-cause notice was set-aside/quashed
Constitution petition was allowed, in circumstances. Federation of Pakistan v. Ibrahim Textile Mills Limited 1992 SCMR 1898 rel.
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Direct challenge to the show cause notice being barred by time
Alternate remedy, availing of
Exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter wherein show-cause notice is challenged directly, in cases wherein on the face of it, if it is time barred, then asking the aggrieved party to avail alternate remedy would amount to refusal of exercise of discretion.
Proper exercise of discretion, concept of
It is not proper exercise of discretion to refuse relief to a party to which it is entitled under law. Collector of Customs v. K&A Industries 2006 PTD 537 and Assistant Collector Customs v. Khyber Electric Lamps 2001 SCMR 838 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition, the Petitioner has impugned Show-Cause Notice dated 28.05.2021 on sole ground that the same is time barred under Section 11(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 as the period alleged in the Show-Cause Notice is from October, 2014 to September, 2015. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Notice was ordered and in the para-wise comments, the relevant response of the Respondents is as under:- Notwithstanding the above, the show-cause notice dated 28-05-2021 has been issued after obtaining condonation of time limit under section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Section 32 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 from the FBR vide order C.No.3(13)ST&FE/Cond/2014/59895-R dated 05-05-2021. Hence show-cause notice is not barred by time. Copy of order C.No. 3(13)ST&FE/Cond/2014/59895-R Annexure A dated 05-05-2021. We are afraid the reason assigned for extension of time cannot extend limitation as provided under Section 11 (ibid); whereas the other argument that matter was under consideration in audit also does not entitle the Respondents to seek extension in the limitation either on the excuse of audit or delay in any other manner. No other ground has been urged; rather the delay in issuance of show cause notice is admitted, otherwise there wasn t any need for an extension as above. In view of the above it appears to be an admitted position that show-cause notice is time barred; whereas, the law as to limitation is settled and the cardinal principle of law is that all are equal before law, whether a citizen or State, and if a law prescribes period of time for recovery of money, after its lapse recovery is not enforceable through Courts
1. As to the exercise of jurisdiction in these matters wherein show cause notice(s) have been challenged directly, we may observe that in cases wherein on the face of it, if it is time barred, then asking the aggrieved party to avail alternate remedy would amount to refusal of exercise of discretion which in the given facts ought to be exercised; and it is not proper exercise of discretion to refuse relief to a party to which it is entitled under law
2. Reliance may also be placed on
3. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances, since it is not in dispute that Show-Cause Notice is hopelessly time barred; hence without jurisdiction, and therefore, we while exercising our Constitutional Jurisdiction can take notice of the same, and by doing so, the impugned Show-Cause Notice is hereby set-aside / quashed. Petition stands allowed. UN/P-9/Sindh Petition allowed. 1 Federation of Pakistan v. Ibrahim Textile Mills Limited (1992 SCMR 1898) 2 1992 SCMR 1898 3 Collector of Customs v. K&A Industries (2006 PTD 537) and Assistant Collector Customs v. Khyber Electric Lamps (2001 SCMR 838)