UMAR TEXTILES vs FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Ss — 2025 PTD 1215 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

UMAR TEXTILES VS FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Ss. 21(2) & 21(5) [as inserted by the Finance Act, 2024]---Sales Tax Rules, 2006, R. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Issuance of notice by tax Authority---Assailing of notice by filing suit---Temporary injunction, seeking of---Factual controversies---Right of appeal, availability of---Effect---Registered person / Company (plaintiff) filed suit, invoking original jurisdiction of High Court, to challenge a 'pre-suspension notice' issued to plaintiff by the Commissioner-Inland Revenue ('Commissioner') for initiating suspension/blacklisting proceedings ('impugned notice')---Plaintiff prayed for a temporary injunction to restrain the Commissioner from taking coercive action against the plaintiff---For seeking temporary injunction, grounds taken by the petitioner / plaintiff (registered person) included that the impugned notice was without the signature of the Commissioner, which was received when date of hearing had passed, and that the allegation in the impugned notice that the petitioner / plaintiff made purchases from suspended or blacklisted vendors was belied by the tax profile of those vendors which showed that at the relevant time those vendors were not suspended nor blacklisted---Validity---The impugned (pre-suspension ) notice was essentially a notice to show-cause against suspension of sales tax registration---It 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 now available to the Plaintiff before the Chief Commissioner in the event an order of suspension was passed against the plaintiff/ petitioner---Excepting a jurisdictional defect, a Court of law did not ordinarily interfere with a show-cause notice issued by a statutory authority lest such interference stifled the exercise of fact-finding and provided an escape from special statutory proceedings and remedies---The grounds urged by petitioner / plaintiff for interference were based on the facts of the case and did not relate to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in issuing the impugned notice---Said facts had been laid by the petitioner / plaintiff before the Commissioner who had yet to pass any order thereon---The temporary injunction sought in effect required (this/High) Court to determine facts instead of the Commissioner---Petitioner /plaintiff did not bring forth any exception for interfering with the impugned notice---Application for grant of temporary injunction, was dismissed, in circumstances.

UMAR TEXTILES vs FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Ss — 2025 PTD 1215 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD