SUFI ABDUL QADEER vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI S — 2024 PTD 299 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SUFI ABDUL QADEER VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI S. 216---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration etc.---Disclosure of information by a public servant---Bar contained in S. 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Scope---During the proceedings before the Civil Court in a suit filed by the plaintiffs against a private person/party, they filed an application for summoning the concerned Commissioner Inland Revenue Department for production of record, which was allowed---Department claimed immunity under provisions of S.216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---appellate Court allowed revision filed by the Department---Contention of the petitioners /plaintiffs was that bar contained in terms of S.216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was not absolute---Validity---Suit was, admittedly, inter se private parties---Respondent/ Commissioner Inland Revenue was not party to the suit---Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, stipulates that in terms of subsection (2), a bar is imposed upon the powers of the Court or other authority to require any public servant to produce before it any return, accounts, or documents contained in, or forming a part of the records, relating to any proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, or declarations made under the relevant laws (like Voluntary Declaration of Domestic assets act, 2018, etc.) or any records of the Income Tax Department generally, or any part thereof, or to give evidence before it in respect thereof except in the manner provided in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Subsection (3) of S. 216, however, ordains that nothing contained in subsection (1) shall preclude the disclosure of any such particulars to a Civil Court in any suit or proceedings to which the Federal Government or any income tax authority is a party which relates to any matter arising out of any proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Though in terms of subsection (4), it is stated that nothing in section 216 shall apply to the production by public servant before a Court of any document, declaration, or affidavit filed or the giving of evidence by a public servant in respect thereof but said provision cannot be read in isolation to subsection (3)---Trial Court before passing an order for the production of documents should have resorted to the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in absence whereof it was precluded to pass such order---Thus, the appellate Court was justified to exercise its revisional jurisdiction while setting aside the order of the Trial Court---Constitutional petition, being meritless was dismissed, in circumstances.

SUFI ABDUL QADEER vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI S — 2024 PTD 299 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PTD