2026 PLP 645 (PTD)

By way of this single order, we intend to decide the tiled petition as well as W.P.No.259 of 2026 as both these petitions are raising similar questions of facts and law.

2. The petitioners herein are engaged in the business relating to selling of food items in the name of "Savours Foods" and "Cheezious" respectively within Rawalpindi City. They are aggrieved of the proceedings conducted by the respondent authority under section 56 of the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2012"), which followed the issuance of show-cause notices under section 24 of the Act ibid. The main ground for assailance is that the respondents conducted the raid on the business premises of the petitioners without any lawful authority and it is violative of Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length, who reiterated the grounds agitated in the petitions.

4. We are mindful of the fact that in order to provide for the levy of a tax on services provided, rendered, initiated, received, originated, executed or consumed in the Punjab and to deal with the ancillary matters, Act, 2012 was promulgated. Chapter VIII of the Act, 2012 deals with the offences and penalties. Section 56, being part of Chapter VIII bestows power upon the officers authorized by the authority by notification in the official Gazette to have access to premises, stocks, accounts and records of at registered person or a person liable for registration or whose business activities are covered under the Act, 2012. In furtherance thereof, the Commissioner, Punjab Revenue Authority issued letters dated 23rd October, 2025 and 3rd November, 2025 respectively directing the imposition of provisions of section 56 regarding impounding of record of M/s Savour Foods and M/s Cheezious to ascertain the correct quantum of Punjab Sales Tax payable by the petitioners. Show-cause notices under section 24 of the Act, 2012 were also issued to the petitioners.

5. Section 60 of the Act, 2012 provides the power of adjudication in respect of cases involving determination of tax liability, assessment of the tax, charging of default surcharge, imposition of penalty and recovery of amount erroneously refunded or any other contravention or violation including tax fraud under this Act or the rules. There is no cavil to the fact that in terms thereof the adjudicating officers have been appointed.

6. Furthermore, section 62 vests power of revision upon the Punjab Revenue Authority and it reads as under:-

62. Revision by the Authority.

(1) The Authority may, of its own motion, call for and examine the record of any departmental proceedings under this Act or the rules for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein by an officer. (2) If after examining the record under subsection (1), the Authority is not satisfied with the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by an officer, it may pass such order as it may think fit. (3) No order imposing or enhancing any penalty or fine requiring payment of a greater amount of the tax than the originally levied amount shall be passed unless the person affected by such order has been given an opportunity of showing cause and of being heard. (4) No proceeding under this section shall be initiated in a case where an appeal under section 66 is pending or the matter has been referred for resolution under section 69. (5) No order shall be made under this section after the expiry of five years from the date of the original decision or order of the subordinate officer referred to in subsection (1).

7. In the above backdrop, we feel no cavil to observe that the petitioners have alternate and efficacious remedies provided under the relevant statute in presence whereof invoking the constitutional jurisdiction would amount to stifle the normal course of law. Needless to observe that the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is neither unbridled nor unrestricted, instead it is an extraordinary jurisdiction to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances.

8. It is trite law that whenever an efficacious and adequate remedy is available to a person invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, it exercises restraint unless some compelling circumstances exist for invocation of such jurisdiction. Reference to this effect if needed can be made to Syed Masood Ali v. Mst. Feroza Begum and another (PLD 2025 Supreme Court 339), Muhammad Safeer and others v. Muhammad Azam and others (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 838), Special Secretary-II (Law and Order), Home and Tribal Affairs Department. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others v. Fayyaz Dawar (2023 SCMR 1442) and Mian Azam Waheed and 2 others v. The Collector of Customs (2023 SCMR 1247).

9. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to exercise jurisdiction in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Resultantly, these petitions fail and are dismissed in limine. MQ/M-36/L Petition dismissed.