2025 PLP 656 (PTD)
TAHIR NAWAZ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
| Citation | 2025 PLP 656 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Arbab Ali Hakro, JJ |
| Parties | TAHIR NAWAZ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 656 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 656 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Arbab Ali Hakro, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 656 (PTD) (TAHIR NAWAZ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Hayat for Petitioner.
- Zafar Hussain for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 32 & 202
Notice requiring payment of alleged short levy
No Statutory Show-Cause Notice issued
Blocking of the National Tax Number (NTN)
Petitioner had impugned demand-cum-hearing Notice ('the impugned notice') as well as subsequent blocking of its Tax Number (NTN) by the Customs Department / Respondents pursuant to not responding to the said Notice
The contents of impugned notice did not specify any provision of any law, under which it had been issued
It appeared that the impugned notice was only a hearing notice and based on this and purportedly, since no response was received, they (respondents) had blocked the NTN of the petitioner
Such a harsh action of the respondents / department was not justifiable and did not find any support from law
Mode and manner in which a recovery can be made is by way of a Show Cause Notice under S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, and not otherwise
Besides, mere issuance of such a notice would not suffice to block the NTN of the petitioner
Such recourse, if at all, was only available after an adjudication had been made and recovery modes as provided under S. 202 of the Customs Act, 1969, had been exhausted
Demand notices in absence of statutory Show-Cause Notices were without lawful foundation
In the absence of the pre-requisite Show-Cause Notice no demand notice requiring payment of any alleged short levy could be issued
Said instrument (Show-Cause Notice) was also required to be issued within the statutorily mandated time frame
Thus, in the present case, the impugned notice could not be made basis for blocking the NTN of the petitioner
High Court directed to unblock the NTN immediately, whereas, the respondents were at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, including S.32 thereof
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Assistant Collector Customs and others v. Khyber Electric Lamps and others 2001 SCMR 838; Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi v. PSO 2011 SCMR 1279; Lever Brothers Pakistan Limited v. Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise Appellate Tribunal and another reported as 2005 PTD 2462; Union Sport Playing Cards Company v. Collector of Customs and another 2002 MLD 130; Shoe Planet (Pvt.) Ltd v. Collector of Customs 2021 PTD 875 and Harris Silicones and Glass (Pvt.) Limited v Federation of Pakistan 2022 PTD 1163 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition the Petitioner has impugned demand cum hearing notice dated 16.02.2023 as well as the blocking of its Tax Number (NTN) by the Respondents pursuant to such notice. Department's counsel has effected appearance and has relied upon Section 155-M of the Customs Act, 1969, in support thereof and submits that since the Petitioner never responded; therefore, NTN has been blocked. We have heard the counsel and perused the record. Insofar as the Demand-Cum- hearing / impugned notice is concerned, it does not specify any provision of any law, under which it has been issued. It appears that it is only a hearing notice and based on this and purportedly, since no response was received, they have blocked the NTN of the Petitioner. Such a harsh action of the Respondent department is not justifiable and does not find any support from law. The mode and manner in which a recovery can be made is, by way of a Show Cause Notice under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, and not otherwise. Not only this, mere issuance of such a notice would not suffice to block the NTN of the Petitioner. Such recourse, if at all, is only available after an adjudication has been made and recovery modes as provided under Section 202 of the Act have been exhausted. The august Supreme Court has consistently maintained1 that demand notices in absence of statutory show cause notices were without lawful foundation. It was observed that in the absence of the pre-requisite show cause notice no demand notice requiring payment of any alleged short levy could be issued. The superior Courts have maintained2 the primacy of the show cause notice in proceedings emanating from section 32 and have also illumined that the said instrument is required to be issued within the statutorily mandated time frame
3. This has already been reiterated by this Court in somewhat similar / identical facts in the case of Shoe Planet4 and Harris Silicones
5. In view of such position the impugned hearing notice cannot be made basis for blocking the NTN of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed to de-block the NTN immediately, whereas, the Respondents are at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act 1969 including Section 32 thereof. With these observations the petition along with listed application stands allowed / disposed of. MQ/T-5/Sindh Petition allowed.