1999 PLP 1069 (PTD)

(b) Income Tax Rules, 1982

R.160

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Power of Receiver

Threat of arrest

Assessee was threatened of arrest by Receiver

Validity

Receiver was directed by the High Court that neither he could cause any unlawful harassment nor he could extend threat of arrest to the assessee

Receiver was directed to deseal the premises. Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioners. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Respondents. Grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the petitioner company had no notice of proceedings for assessment made by the assessing authority and that the demand notice was not served, and despite that Receiver was appointed. Second grievance of the petitioner is that the Receiver travelled beyond his authority by sealing the premises and also by raiding premises of the petitioner. Third grievance is that the Receiver is threatening arrest of petitioner for which he has no lawful authority. Sh. Akbar Ali, Special Officer of the respondents appeared alongwith Mr. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, learned legal advisor of respondents. Latter submits that the department made hectic efforts to make personal service of the notice but there was none to receive the same. He further explained that notice was served to the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the respondents has no cavil with the proposition that the Receiver cannot seal the premises nor can arrest the petitioner and that power to arrest is exercisable by the assessing authority in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Ordinance and the rules framed thereunder.

2. In this view of the matter, the Special Officer of respondents who was present in Court is directed to serve demand notice to the petitioner, today. Learned counsel for the respondents and also representative of respondents have stated that they will deliver the demand notice to the petitioner today. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr. Abdul Qayyum, Manager is authorised to receive the notice. He will approach the Income Tax Authorities and receive the notice. Further submits that after receiving the demand notice and inspecting the record, petitioner will take appropriate measure or avail remedy in accordance with law for challenging the order in appeal or before the forum in the hierarchy of jurisdiction.

3. As regard sealing of the premises, the respondent do not contest the position that Receiver is not competent to seal the premises, though he is competent to take control of business. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that premises will be desealed without delay, so as to allow the petitioner to inspect the record for the purposes of filing appeal.

4. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is directed that respondents shall ensure that premises is desealed. However, the Receiver may function in accordance with law and in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance and Rules framed thereunder. The Receiver will not cause any unlawful harassment to the petitioner nor would extend threat of arrest. This order will not debar the E respondents from proceeding against the petitioner for recovery of the amount in question in accordance with law. Petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the impugned order and also apply for interim relief against appointment of Receiver, which application/appeal shall be decided, by the appellate authority, in accordance with law and on its own merits. This petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.M.A./J-58K/L Petition disposed of.