2002 PLP 2799 (PTD)

Brief facts out of which present petition arises are that assessment orders was passed against the petitioner by the respondent on 15-4-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before respondent No. 2 along-with application for interim relief which is pending adjudication. During the pendency of appeal respondent issued demand notice on 15-4-2002. Subsequently, the respondent issued revised demand notice on 27-4-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the assessments order is not sustainable in the eyes of .law in view of law laid down by this Court in the Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax v. Messrs Engineering Cooperative Housing Society, Lahore (2000 PTD 3388). He further submits that respondent has no authority whatsoever, to issue demand notice unless and until, the appeal of the petitioner is not decided by respondent No.2.

3. Learned Legal Advisor of the respondent has entered appearance on Court call along-with Mr. Muhammad Arshad, D.C. Income Tax. HC submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has already alternative remedy.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties.

5. It is settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by act of public functionaries as per principle laid down by this Court in Ahmed Latif Qureshi v. Controller of Examination (PLD 1994 Lahore 3). It is also settled principle of law that after addition of section 24-A in the General clauses Act, it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to redress the grievances of the citizens with reasons as per principle laid down by, then Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M.S. Airport Sport Service v. The Airport Manager Quaid-i-Azam International Airport Karachi" (1998 SCMR 2268). The appeal of the petitioner is pending before respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, the respondent No. 1 has to recover the disputed amount from the petitioner after final order passed by respondent No. 2 against petitioner as the matter is sub judice before, him for final adjudication.

6. In view of the circumstances, respondent .No.2 is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner positively till 7-6-2002 even at the cost of day to day proceedings. The impugned demand notice is held in abeyance till the aforesaid date. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to handover copy of writ petition along-with all the Annexures to Mr. Muhammad Ilyas, Legal Advisor of the respondent who shall send the same to respondent No.2 for necessary action and compliance.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that I have taken aforesaid view in Writ Petitioner. No. 11754 of 1999. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved filed I.C.A. No. 568 of 199 and order of this Court was upheld. Even otherwise, I am not in a position to deviate from my own view on the well-known principle of consistency as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf Khan (PLD 1959 SC 9).

8. In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Q.M.H/P-94/L Order accordingly.