2019 PLP 1774 (PTD)
MARI PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager Finance, Islamabad Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1774 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Islamabad High Court |
| Bench Members | Athar Minallah, C.J. and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J |
| Parties | MARI PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager Finance, Islamabad Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1774 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1774 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Islamabad High Court bench comprising: Athar Minallah, C.J. and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1774 (PTD) (MARI PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager Finance, Islamabad Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Barrister Omer Azad Malik for Appellant.
- Babar Bilal for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.43 read with S.122(5-A)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Maintainability of Constitutional petition against a show-cause notice issued by a Public Department/Functionary
Scope
Issuance of a show-cause notice did not amount to an adverse action
Constitutional petition against mere issuance of show-cause notice was not maintainable unless the same was wholly without jurisdiction and in violation of a statute
Where there existed no exceptional circumstances which would warrant interference in a show-cause notice, then such Constitutional petition was not maintainable
Contention that under garb of a show-cause notice coercive action would be taken against a petitioner was a mere apprehension and High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could not act upon mere apprehensions. 2018 PTD 287; Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khan v. Branch Manager, National Bank of Pakistan Jhatpat and others 2000 SCMR 1017; Zaver Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Federal Board of Revenue 2016 PTD 2332; Al-Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 29; Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited v. Government of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 493; Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Faisalabad v. Punjab Beverage Company (Pvt.) Ltd. 2007 PTD 1347; Irum Shah Shahadi v. Principal School of Nursing, Mayo Hospital, Lahore 2017 PLC (C.S.) 943; Apna T.V. Channel (Private) Limited v. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority 2017 CLC 199 and Muhammad Aslam v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2017 PTD 803 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Through this order, we propose to decide intra Court Appeals Nos.214/2019 to 216/2019, since they entail common questions of law and fact.
2. Through the said appeals, the appellant, Mari Petroleum Company Limited has impugned the judgment dated 29.04.2019, passed by the learned Judge-in-Chambers, whereby Writ Petitions Nos. 1946/ 2017, 1991/2018 and 394/2019, were dismissed as not maintainable. In the said writ petitions, the appellant had challenged show-cause notices issued under Section 4B read with Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("the 2001 Ordinance").
3. The appellant's writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Judge-in-Chambers primarily on the ground that the vires of Section 4B of the 2001 Ordinance stand settled through the judgment reported as 2018 PTD 287, and that a writ petition against a mere show-cause notice is not maintainable.
4. It is well settled that mere issuance of a show-cause notice does not amount to an adverse action. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khan v. Branch Manager, National Bank of Pakistan Jhatpat and others (2000 SCMR 1017) and Zaver Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Federal Board of Revenue (2016 PTD 2332). It is also well settled that a writ petition against the mere issuance of a show-cause notice is not maintainable unless the same is wholly without jurisdiction and in violation of a statute. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Al-Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1993 SCMR 29), Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited v. Government of Pakistan (1993 SCMR 493) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Faisalabad v. Punjab Beverage Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (2007 PTD 1347), Irum Shah Shahadi v. Principal School of Nursinci, Mayo Hospital, Lahore (2017 PLC (C.S.) 943) and Apna T.V. Channel (Private) Limited v. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (2017 CLC 199). In the case at hand, there is no exceptional circumstance which would warrant interference with the impugned notices. In the case of Muhammad Aslam v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2017 PTD 803), it has been held inter-alia that apprehension that under the garb of a notice, coercive action would be taken against the petitioner was nothing but an apprehension and that the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction did not act upon mere apprehensions. Therefore, interference at this stage is not warranted.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any provision of the law that had been violated by respondent No.4 by issuing the impugned show-cause notice. He could also not explain as to how the impugned notices were without lawful authority or jurisdiction. The appellant is at liberty to take the grounds agitated in the writ petition in the reply to the impugned show-cause notices, which are expected to be taken into consideration by respondent No.4 before passing an order, unless the same has already been passed. In case respondent No.4 has already been passed an order, the appellant can assail such an order in an appeal.
6. In view of the above, these appeals are dismissed in limine. KMZ/107/Isl. Appeals dismissed.