2026 PLP 616 (PTD)
EXIDE PAKISTAN LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
| Citation | 2026 PLP 616 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | EXIDE PAKISTAN LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others |
| Primary Law | (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 616 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 616 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 616 (PTD) (EXIDE PAKISTAN LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 21(2) & 21(5) [as inserted by the Finance Act, 2024]
Sales Tax Rules, 2006, R. 12
Initiation of suspension/ blacklisting proceedings, assailing of
Remedy subsequently available
Retrospective applicability
Scope
Suit was brought to challenge a "pre-suspension notice" issued to the plaintiff (company / registered person) by the Commissioner-Inland Revenue ('Commissioner-IR ') for initiating suspension/ blacklisting proceedings
Plaintiff prayed for a temporary injunction to restrain the Commissioner-IR from taking coercive action against the plaintiff
The impugned 'pre-suspension' notice was essentially a notice to show-cause against suspension of sales tax registration ; which was a precursor to blacklisting proceedings
By virtue of subsection (5) of S. 21 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 which had been inserted by the Finance Act 2024, a remedy was available to the plaintiff before the Chief Commissioner in the event an order of suspension was passed against the plaintiff
Though that provision was inserted in the statute after the suit was filed, it is settled law that an amendment in statute to provide a forum is procedural in nature and therefore operates retrospectively
Since the plaintiff did not bring forth any exception for interfering with the impugned notice, application seeking grant of temporary injunction was dismissed. Income Tax Peshawar v. Islamic Investment Bank Ltd. 2016 SCMR 816; Air League of PIAC Employees v. Federation of Pakistan 2011 SCMR 1254; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) PLD 1992 SC 847; Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Punjab Beverage Company (Pvt.) Ltd. 2007 PTD 1347; Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi 2016 SCMR 842; Dr. Seema Irfan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2019 Sindh 516; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Jehangir Khan Tareen 2022 SCMR 92; Zain ul Abideen v. Federal Board of Revenue PLD 2021 Sindh 130 and Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. v. Pakistan 2022 PTD 1742 ref.
O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 21(2) & 21(5)
Initiation of suspension/blacklisting proceedings, assailing of
Temporary injunction sought
Suit was brought to challenge a "pre-suspension notice" issued to the plaintiff (company / registered person) by the Commissioner-Inland Revenue ('Commissioner-IR') for initiating suspension / blacklisting proceedings
Plaintiff prayed for a temporary injunction to restrain the Commissioner-IR from taking coercive action against the plaintiff
Held: Excepting a jurisdictional defect, a Court of law does not ordinarily interfere with a show-cause notice issued by a statutory authority lest such interference stifles the exercise of fact-finding and provides an escape from special statutory proceedings and remedies
The grounds urged by the plaintiff for interference were on the facts of the case and did not go to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner-IR in issuing the impugned notice ; said facts had been laid by the plaintiff before the Commissioner-IR who had yet to pass any order thereon; he might well agree with the plaintiff
Temporary injunction sought in effect required the High Court to determine to those facts instead of the Commissioner-IR
Since the plaintiff did not bring forth any exception for interfering with the impugned notice, application seeking grant of temporary injunction was dismissed. Ovais Ali Shah for Plaintiff. Nisar Ali Naushad Babar, Assistant Attorney General for Defendant No.1. Nemo for Defendant No.2. Ameer Bakhsh Metlo along with Ms. Zakia for Defendant No.3.
Judgment & Decree
ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.
The suit has been brought to challenge a pre-suspension notice dated 19.04.2024 issued to the Plaintiff by the Commissioner-IR for initiating suspension/blacklisting proceedings under section 21(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Rule 12 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 [impugned notice]. By C.M.A. No. 6447/2024, the Plaintiff prays for a temporary injunction to restrain the Commissioner-IR from taking coercive action against the Plaintiff.
2. Learned counsel submits that the allegation in the impugned notice that the Plaintiff claimed input tax adjustments on the basis of fake/flying invoices is completely unsubstantiated; and the allegation that the Plaintiff made purchases from a suspended vendor is also belied by the notice itself which shows that at the relevant time the said vendor was not suspended. Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned notice is mala fide.
3. Heard learned counsel and perused the record. The impugned pre-suspension notice is essentially a notice to show-cause against suspension of sales tax registration. It is a precursor to blacklisting proceedings. By virtue of subsection (5) of section 21 of the Sales Tax Act, which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2024, a remedy is now available to the Plaintiff before the Chief Commissioner in the event an order of suspension is passed against the Plaintiff. Though that provision was inserted in the statute after the suit was filed, it is settled law that an amendment in statute to provide a forum is procedural in nature and therefore operates retrospectively.1
4. It is by now also settled that excepting a jurisdictional defect, a Court of law does not ordinarily interfere with a show-cause notice issued by a statutory authority lest such interference stifles the exercise of fact-finding and provides an escape from special statutory proceedings and remedies.2 The grounds urged by learned counsel for interference are on the facts of the case and do not go to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner-IR in issuing the impugned notice. Those facts have been laid by the Plaintiff before the Commissioner-IR who has yet to pass any order thereon. He may well agree with the Plaintiff. The temporary injunction sought in effect requires this Court to determine to those facts instead of the Commissioner-IR.
5. In view of the foregoing, since the Plaintiff does not bring forth any exception for interfering with the impugned notice, C.M.A. No. 6447/2024 is dismissed. MQ/E-2/Sindh Application dismissed. 1 Income Tax Peshawar v. Islamic Investment Bank Ltd. (2016 SCMR 816) and Air League of PIAC Employees v. Federation of Pakistan (2011 SCMR 1254). 2 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) (PLD 1992 SC 847); Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Punjab Beverage Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (2007 PTD 1347); Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi (2016 SCMR 842); Dr. Seema Irfan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 Sindh 516); Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Jehangir Khan Tareen (2022 SCMR 92); Zain ul Abideen v. Federal Board of Revenue (PLD 2021 Sindh 130) and Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. v. Pakistan (2022 PTD 1742).