ORIENT ENERGY SYSTEMS (PVT.) LTD. vs The ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AUDIT-II) INLAND REVENUE Ss

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

ORIENT ENERGY SYSTEMS (PVT.) LTD. VS The ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AUDIT-II) INLAND REVENUE Ss. 4C & 221---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Departmental proceedings---Orders passed by tax authorities, assailing of---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Doctrine of election of remedy---Scope---Petitioner/Company filed constitutional petition against order passed under S. 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance, 2001')---Contention of the petitioner (Company) was that since applicability of S. 4C of the Ordinance 2001 had been decided by the Sindh High Court in the case titled as Shell Pakistan Limited v. Federation of Pakistan reported as 2023 PTD 607 ('the Shell Pakistan case'), hence, the present (constitutional) petition was maintainable---Validity---Admittedly, the petitioner had not challenged vires of S. 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, before---Record also showed that the petitioner was given a Show-Cause Notice which was contested and an order under S. 221(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was passed along with certain others orders ; order under S. 124 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as well as an Appellate Order under S.129 of the Ordinance, 2001, against the petitioner was also passed---Admittedly, the petitioner was planning to avail further remedy in accordance with law---But despite said fact(s), present (constitutional) petition was filed on the basis of the Shell Pakistan case---Said conduct of the petitioner was not appreciable as the petitioner could not avail two different remedies at the same time to seek redressal of its grievance---Petitioner was at liberty to approach the High Court directly by challenging the vires of S. 4C of the Ordinance, 2001 as had been done by various other taxpayers, and if not, then the petitioner could not, in between the departmental proceedings, file a constitutional petition and seek adjudication of the Show-Cause Notices or even orders passed by the Department under its hierarchy---Doctrine of election denotes that the election to commence and follow an available course, from concurrent avenues, vests with a suitor, however, once an option is exercised then the suitor is precluded from re-agitating the same lis in other realms of competent jurisdiction---Thus the contention of the petitioner was misconceived---Constitutional petition, filed by taxpayer, was dismissed with costs.

ORIENT ENERGY SYSTEMS (PVT.) LTD. vs The ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AUDIT-II) INLAND REVENUE Ss — 2025 PTD 431 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD