GALAXY IMPEX vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad S — 2025 PTD 786 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation: 2025 PTD 786 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court: Sindh High Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: PTD
Parties: GALAXY IMPEX vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad S
Subject matter: Civil
Provisions referred to: S. 46---C; S. 7---C; S. 9---S; S. 46; S. 9; S. 7; Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); Sales Tax Act; Civil Procedure Code; Civil Courts Ordinance

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

Judgment text as reported

GALAXY IMPEX VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad S. 46---Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9---Suit before Single Bench of the High Court against the tax authorities, filing of---Alternate remedy, availability of---Plaintiff (taxpayer) filed present suit against the suspension of its Sales Tax Registration---Contention of the plaintiff was that despite the issuance of pre-suspension notice no opportunity was provided---Validity---Said contention appeared to be misconceived as the requirement of law had been complied with, whereas, the plaintiff / petitioner ought to have availed further remedy in accordance with law including but not limited to S. 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---High Court has to exercise its original side jurisdiction sparingly and with caution, it may still take cognizance of any suit arising out of an action/order of the tax authorities/Customs Officers, however, such jurisdiction must be sparingly exercised by the Single Bench---High Court is not required to mandatorily exercise such jurisdiction in tax matters on the Original Side of the High Court in terms of S. 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, read with S. 7 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962---Jurisdiction vested in the High Court specially in tax / revenue matters is not to be exercised in every run-of-the-mill case---Thus, the plaintiff ought to have availed the alternate remedy---Suit, being not maintainable and misconceived, was dismissed.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD

2025 PTD 1833 BALOCHISTAN-SALES-TAX-ON-SERVICES-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL, QUETTACASING CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER BALOCHISTAN REVENUE AUTHORITY. Ss. 2(115), 2(139), 25 & 27 - Balochistan Sales Tax on Serv…
2025 PTD 1230 SUPREME-COURTKASSIM TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI Literal rule---Legislation---Powers of Court---Where words of st…
2025 PTD 1179 SUPREME-COURTWAK LIMITED MULTAN ROAD, LAHORE VS COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE (NOW COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, LAHORE) Statutory d…
2025 PTD 1634 SUPREME-COURTThe DIRECTORATE OF POST CLEARANCE AUDIT through DG, FBR, Islamabad VS NESTLE PAKISTAN LIMITED, ISLAMABAD art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to…
2025 PTD 1270 SUPREME-COURTDIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION-FBR, through Director VS TAJ INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. Ss. 2(37), 3, 11, 33 & 37a---assessment…
2025 PTD 1270 SUPREME-COURTDIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION-FBR, through Director VS TAJ INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. Imposing of tax---Principle---Under mod…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English