RELIANCE WEAVING MILLS LIMITED vs FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE (FBR) 199

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

RELIANCE WEAVING MILLS LIMITED VS FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE (FBR) 199---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S. 48---Reference application already filed by Registered Person---Notice of recovery, assailing of---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Powers of the High Court to convert one type of proceeding into another type of proceeding and decide it itself---Case of the petitioner is that the Sales Tax Reference is still pending before High Court and due to grudge of filing of STR, Impugned Notices have been sent for recovery---Impugned Notices have been challenged by the petitioner (Registered Person) through filing constitutional petition seeking suspension of recovery notices / proceedings during pendency of the said STR---Plea of the petitioner was that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction may convert present petition into Reference Application and decide it itself---Validity---Though High Court can always convert one type of proceeding into another type of proceeding and decide itself, yet subject to the rider that it has jurisdiction over the issue, subject matter of the dispute and if jurisdiction is not vested in High Court to decide then refer the same to the competent authority, forum, officer or court for its decision on merits---Thus, despite the power vested in High Court to convert present constitution petition into a reference application / petition, it is not a plausible/ feasible option in the present case for the reason that a reference application has already been filed by the petitioner prior to the filing of this constitution petition and the Division Bench of High Court, that has to hear the said reference application, enjoys full powers to grant relief prayed for by the petitioner---Although High Court may in appropriate cases exercise its constitutional jurisdiction despite availability of alternate remedy, yet that jurisdiction is to be exercised by keeping in view the question whether equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner or not---In the present case, it is apparent that equally efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner which right has also been exercised by the petitioner by filing a reference application before High Court, which is still pending, and consequently it would not be appropriate for High Court to exercise constitutional jurisdiction at this stage for the reason that where a thing is required to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that manner as required by the statute otherwise such act will be illegal and without jurisdiction---Petitioner has not made any attempt to get his reference application and the stay application fixed for hearing before approaching High Court for redress of grievance through the instant constitution petition---Moreover, High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction is not in a position to give direction to the learned Division Bench of High Court to entertain and decide the reference application already pending before it for the reason that the same would amount to High Court entertaining constitutional petition against itself which jurisdiction has specifically been excluded by Art. 199 of the Constitution and High Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction against itself---Consequently, present constitutional petition, at this stage is not entertainable / maintainable due to equally efficacious alternate remedy available to petitioner, under the law---Constitutional petition, filed by Registered Person, having been withdrawn, is disposed of. Citation Name: 2025 PTD 1300 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case RELIANCE WEAVING MILLS LIMITED VS FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE (FBR) S. 48---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 199---Reference application already filed by registered person---Notice of recovery, assailing of---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Alternate remedy, availability /availing of---Effect---Case of the petitioner was that the Sales Tax Reference is still pending before High Court and due to grudge of filing of Sales Tax Reference, Impugned Notices have been sent for recovery---Impugned Notices have been challenged by the petitioner (Registered Person) through Constitutional petition seeking suspension of recovery notices/proceedings during pendency of the said STR---Whether the High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction should stay the recovery notices issued to the petitioner during the pendency of Sales Tax Reference before High Court---Held: It is not disputed that access to justice is a fundamental right and an essential feature of the said right is that there should be adjudication of grievance by an independent tribunal before a person can be proceeded against under the law ensuring essential ingredients (there should be an independent, impartial court, a fair and public hearing, right of counsel, right to information of the offence charged for with an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and an opportunity to produce evidence) of right of fair trial in reference to Art. 10-A of the Constitution---It is also pertinent that assessment orders as such do not have touch of finality unless all the forums are exhausted in which such orders can be challenged, so that the orders take the shape of final decisions---The legislature when it provides a hierarchy of tribunals for the determination of a dispute is really providing one complete procedure for such determination, proceedings before different tribunals are only steps in such procedure---Order passed in original proceedings is not final unless it crosses all the forums set up under that law in which it can be challenged and the order of the last forum would become final---An assessee is entitled to adjudication in respect of his disputed tax liabilities by at least one independent forum outside hierarchy of the respondent department and the appellate tribunal in taxation matters is the first independent forum---Thus, stay order against recovery of demand of tax cannot be issued by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, when the Tax Reference has already been filed before High Court---Consequently, constitutional petition at this stage is not entertainable/maintainable due to equally efficacious alternate remedy available to petitioner under the law---Constitutional petition, filed by Registered Person, having been withdrawn, was disposed of.

RELIANCE WEAVING MILLS LIMITED vs FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE (FBR) 199 — 2025 PTD 1300 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD