[Lahore High Court]
Before Asim Hafeez, J
OUTFITTERS STORES (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Director
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division, FBR and 2 others
Writ Petition No.68823 of 2022, decided on 8th December, 2022.
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----S. 175(1)(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Expression "full and free access"---Scope---Raid, search and impounding of documents---Jurisdiction---Expression "full and free access" employed in S. 175 (1)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, has to be given full effect---Expression "search" in heading of S. 175 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, has to be construed in the company of expressions "full and free access"---Effect and significance of S.175(7) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, cannot be undermined or overlooked---Legislature consciously has avoided reference to requirements prescribed for search in terms of S.103 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Warrant of authorization depicts an apparent purpose, i.e., enforcement of provision of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----Ss. 175 & 177---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.11---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Authorization Order---Raid, search and impounding of documents---Jurisdiction---Petitioner company was aggrieved of issuance of Authorization Order by authorities to initiate coercive measures including raid, search and impounding of record---Validity---High Court under judicial review jurisdiction could not embark upon an exercise to probe to ascertain whether documents supplied by petitioner company were sufficient to satisfy officer conducting audit---Satisfaction was prerogative of the Commissioner, who upon petitioners' lack of cooperation was constrained to invoke S.175 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Warrant of Authorization in question fulfilled prescribed statutory requirements, contained reasoning, justification and requisite necessity of invoking S.175 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in the wake of violation to comply with the directives under S. 177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in the context of audit proceedings conducted and apparent non-cooperation by failing to provide documents requested for facilitating audit---High Court did not find any illegality in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 175 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---High Court declined to interfere in the matter as there was no bias, mala fide, or misuse of authority established and obliquely purpose of the present petition was to forestall or obstruct audit proceedings---High Court did not find any reason to assume and exercise constitutional jurisdiction as assumption of jurisdiction would otherwise be unjust and unfair, which tantamount to interfering in audit proceedings---High Court declined to decide issue of legality of notice under S. 11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Petitioner company could invoke remedies available in the context of proceedings in question---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Collector of Customs, Lahore v. Nestle Milk Pack Limited, Sheikhupura 2007 PTD 921; Muhammad Waheed through Attorney v. Customs Appellate Tribunal and another 2016 PTD 35; The Province of West Pakistan through the Secretary, Social Welfare and Local Government Department and The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, West Pakistan, Lahore v. Ch. Din Muhammad and others PLD 1964 SC 21 and Agha Steel Industries Ltd. through Authorized Company Secretary and another v. Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation through Director and 2 others 2019 PTD 2119 ref.
Khurram Shahzad v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2019 PTD 1124; K.K. Oil and Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federal Board of Revenue and others 2016 PTD 2601; A.M.Z. Spinning and Weaving Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager Finance v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division/ Ex-Officio Chairman, C.B.R., Islamabad and 2 others 2009 PTD 1083; Messrs Ihsan Yousaf Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others 2003 PTD 2037; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 4 others v. Messrs Master Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director 2003 PTD 1034 and Collector of Sales Tax and others v. Messrs Food Consults (Pvt.) Ltd. and another 2007 PTD 2356 distinguished.
Pakistan Petroleum Limited through Authorized Officer v. Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 4 others 2016 PTD 2664; Raza Motor Industries through Authorized Representative v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Revenue Division, Islamabad and 3 others 2022 PTD 19; Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Sialkot and others v. Messrs Allah Din Steel and Rolling Mills and others 2018 SCMR 1328; Khan Bacha v. The State PLD 2006 Kar. 698; D.G. Khan Cement Company Limited and others v. The Federal Board of Revenue (W.P. No.15880 of 2021); Collector of Customs, Islamabad v. Messrs Askari Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2020 SCMR 649 and Atlas Honda Ltd. through Authorized Attorney v. Pakistan through Secretary Revenue and 3 others 2022 PTD 866 rel.
(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----S. 175---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Authorization Order---Judicial review---Scope---It is not for High Court to pass any direction when remedy is available under S. 175(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----S. 175---Authorization Order---Maxim Absoluta sentential expositore non indiget---Applicability---Provisions of laws from different fiscal statutes cannot be read as part of S.175 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which is offensive to the textual meaning of S. 175 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Maxim Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget which means plain words need no exposition, is applicable, as there is no ambiguity in the text.
Sarfaraz Ahmad Cheema and Anas Irtiza Awan for Petitioner.
Sheraz Zaka, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan.
Ms. Humaira Bashir Chaudhary for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Yasir Islam Chaudhary, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
