Adjudication proceedings

2026 PTD 156 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(s), 16, 156(1) (89) & 179(3)Smuggling, matter ofAdjudication proceedingsLimitationOrder-in-Original was clearly time barred as it was passed two months and twenty four days after the Show-Cause NoticeDecision given beyond the prescribed limitation under S. 179(3) of the Customs Act was invalidResultantly, the questions proposed by the Applicant were answered in his favourHigh Court set-aside the impugned judgments

Customs Reference was allowed.

2025 MLD 148 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.12(1), 23 & 23AAdjudication proceedingsScope

Offence contemplated by S.23 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 is triable by a Tribunal created under S.23A of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947

Provision of S.23 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, by its terms excludes, amongst others, provision of S.12 (1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 from its operation.

2025 MLD 148 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.12(1), 23, 23A & 23BAdjudication proceedingsShow cause noticePayment of exported goods

Petitioners / directors of exporter company were aggrieved of show cause notice issued by authorities intending to initiate proceedings for not repatriating export value of exported goods

Validity

Contravention of provision of S.12 (1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, can only result in imposition of penalty and no punishment of sentence is prescribed

Issue of such punishment does not arise in case of S.23B read with S.12 (1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947

Statute which visits penal consequences on a person for his conduct must be construed strictly

Legislature did not intend to make directors and other officials of the company liable in case of violation / contravention of the provisions of S.12 (1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947

Action of authorities in sending show cause notice and summons in pursuance thereof for alleged contravention of provision of S.12 (1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 by petitioners / directors could not be sustained under S.23B of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, which by its terms did not attach any penalty to petitioners / directors of exporter company

High Court set aside show cause notice and summons issued against petitioners / directors as the same were without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2023 PTD 817 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.11Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), S.14Recovery of taxShow cause noticeAdjudication proceedingsOrder-in-originalLimitationScope

Commissioner, under subsection (5) of S.11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and subsection (2) of S. 14 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, is obligated to record reasons in writing for the grant of an extension of time

Commissioner cannot extend the time according to his own choice and whims as a matter of routine without any limit or constraint; he can only do so after applying his mind and recording reasons for such extension in writing

Under the said provisions, routine extensions granted by the Commissioner without recording reasons are null and void

Language of the relevant provisos is clear and explicit and no exception can be taken to the fact that the Commissioner is required to adhere to the condition precedent of recording reasons in writing before passing the assessment order.

2023 PTD 817 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.11Recovery of taxShow-cause noticeAdjudication proceedingsOrder-in-originalLimitationScope

First proviso to S. 11(5) is mandatory in nature and failure to comply with it would render the order invalid.

2021 PTD 384 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(a), 80, 83, 155Q, 186, 193-A, 195 & 215Customs Rules, 2001, Rr.438 & 442Notification SRO No.371(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002Clearance of goodsShow-cause noticeNo space for replyMis-declarationAdjudication proceedings

Despite payment of all duties and taxes levied by authorities, goods in question were not released by Customs Authorities

Validity

No appeals were filed and customs authorities despite mandated under law instead assumed the powers under S.195 of Customs Act, 1969, and reopened valid assessment/clearance orders passed under the provisions of Ss.80 & 83 of Customs Act, 1969 & Rr. 438 & 442 of Customs Rules, 2001

Customs Authorities were not empowered to reopen valid assessment order passed by the authority defined in S.2(a) of Customs Act, 1969, in exercise of powers vested upon him through SRO 371(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002

All officials acted without power/jurisdiction hence their actions were deemed to be without any lawful authority and as such ab-initio null and void

Importer was called upon to show cause notice for submitting reply online, for which no space was available in the developed software of CCS as was provided to importer in the module reading as ' Traders Reply'

Such show cause notice was transmitted on home page of importer and was only for information, not for submitting reply, if reply was warranted to be submitted, space would have provided which was not available

Such show cause notice was not served on importer as per the contemplation of Ss.155Q & 215 of Customs Act, 1969, rendering the order passed by authorities of no legal effect and void and ab-initio

Customs Appellate Tribunal set aside show cause notice and all reassessment orders passed by Authorities as ab-initio, null and void and maintained the assessment order as the same was correct in fact and law

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2021 PTD 19 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(a), 80, 83, 186, 193-A& 202Customs Rules, 2001, Rr.438 & 442Notification SRO No.371(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002Clearance of goodsMis-declarationAdjudication proceedings

Despite payment of all duties and taxes levied by authorities, goods in question were not released by Customs Authorities

Validity

Authorities were only authorized to take action for issuance of detention notice in terms of S.202 of Customs Act, 1969, once amount alleged to have been evaded was finally adjudicated and deiced against the person

Procedure and mechanism provided in S.202 Customs Act, 1969, was entirely independent of any action taken in terms of S.186 of Customs Act, 1969

Adjudication was not done either in respect of goods allegedly cleared against fake Goods Declaration

Putting a hold on Goods Declaration / detaining of consignment of importer by Principal Appraiser was not only without lawful authority and jurisdiction and in derogation of S.186 of Customs Act, 1969, and law laid down by superior Courts

Consignment which had undergone process of passing assessment order under the provision of S.80 of Customs Act, 1969 and R.438 of Customs Rules, 2001, for levy of duty and taxes, which were paid and thereafter valid clearance order as contemplated in S.83 of Customs Act, 1969 and R.442 of Customs Rules, 2001, was passed by competent authority in exercise of powers vested upon him through SRO No.371(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002, such order was appealable order and could not be disturbed by any other authority including Principal Appraiser and Deputy Collector, with the exception of preferring an appeal under the provision of S.193 of Customs Act, 1969

In passing of order of rejection within the stipulated period of 120 days as contemplated in S.193-A(3) of Customs Act, 1969, which he failed as the same was evident from the date when appeal was filed

Order was to be passed by Appellate Authority within 120 days but no extension was either given by him or obtained by Federal Board of Revenue and the order by the Appellate authority was silent in such regard

Order passed by Appellate authority was barred by 70 days

Customs Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by Authorities as ab-initio, null and void and maintained the assessment order as the same was correct in fact and law

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2017 PTD 1756 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 11(4), first proviso [erstwhile], 36(3), first proviso [erstwhile], 11(5) & 74Sales tax, recovery ofShow cause noticeAdjudication proceedingsOrder-in-originalLimitation period

Question as to whether the limitation period contained in the first provisos to the erstwhile Ss. 11(4) & 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and the current S. 11(5) of the Act for passing an order thereunder was 'mandatory' or 'directory' in nature; held, that provisions of S. 11 and the erstwhile S.36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ("the Act") were mandatory in nature, and any order passed beyond the time period stipulated therein would be invalid

Collector/Commissioner had the power to extend the time within which an order under provisions of S. 11 or the erstwhile S. 36 of the Act was to be passed

Such time could also be extended in a particular case or class of cases by the Federal Board of Revenue ("the Board") or the Commissioner if empowered by the Board, as per the provisions of S. 74 of the Act

Power to extend time in terms of S. 74 of the Act must be exercised within a reasonable time period of 'six months' from the date when the time period provided in the first provisos to S. 11 and the erstwhile section 36 of the Act and the extension granted thereunder had lapsed, and such power could only be exercised (by the Board under S. 74) to grant an extension of not more than a reasonable time period of 'six months'.

2013 PTD 1971 CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-II KARACHI Judicial Precedent

S. 180Adjudication proceedingsDispensing with requirement of issuing show-cause notice to assessee at his request for summary adjudicationScope

Object of issuing such notice being to enable assessee to know about charges levelled against him, applicable contravened provisions of law and attracted penal clauses

Adjudication Officer could not ignore mandatory requirement of issuing such notice prior to proceedings for adjudication either properly or summarily

Principles.