ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE UNIT III ZONE-CANTT, RTO, RAWALPINDI vs UMER TARIQ KHAN

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE UNIT III ZONE-CANTT, RTO, RAWALPINDI VS UMER TARIQ KHAN. Art. 189---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 11(5), first proviso & 11G(2)---Law settled by judgments of superior courts---Binding on Government Departments including Federal Board of Revenue (FBR)---FBR repeatedly assailing decisions qua questions of law already settled by judgments of superior courts---Doctrine of stare decisis---In the present case, the Order-in-Original was barred by time having been issued after a period of 120 days from the date of the issuance of the Show-Cause Notice; whereas adjudication within stipulated time is/was mandatory in nature as affirmed/settled by various judgments of superior courts---Despite the law laid down by the Supreme Court which is binding on the Federal Board of Revenue ("FBR") in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution, in the present case, the petitioners/Department attempted to reinvent the wheel by agitating the ground that the time limit of 120 days prescribed in the first proviso to Section 11(5) substituted and replaced by Section 11G(2) of the 1990 Act for passing an order is directory and not mandatory---When government departments routinely file appeals/petitions (often up to the High Courts and the Supreme Court) on questions of law that have already been authoritatively settled, the practice results in serious institutional harms---The most immediate consequence is the clogging of court dockets---Courts are compelled to spend scarce judicial time revisiting issues that are no longer res integra at the cost of undecided legal and constitutional questions, criminal appeals involving personal liberty, and civil disputes pending for years; which undermines the constitutional mandate of speedy justice---Repeated appeals/petitions on settled law weaken respect for Article 189 of the Constitution, the doctrine of stare decisis, and judicial discipline within the executive branch---When the State itself disregards binding precedents, it sends the wrong signals to subordinate courts and litigants---Such appeals/petitions result in unavoidable litigation costs, consumption of public funds for counsel, court fees, and administrative processing---State is expected to act as a responsible and fair litigant, not as a compulsive appellant/petitioner---Courts already possess both constitutional authority and jurisprudential tools to address the problem of repeated appeals/petitions by government departments on settled questions of law---Not only can the courts dismiss such appeals/petitions in limine, but one of the most effective tools is the imposition of costs---In egregious cases, courts may require identification of the officer for authorizing the appeals/petitions---It is imperative for there to be internal accountability by government departments and careful legal scrutiny before filing appeals/petitions---Had such scrutiny taken place before the filing of the instant petition, it would have been realized that the primary question of law sought to be agitated by the petitioners already stood authoritatively settled---In order to address said problem it is imperative for the Chairman, FBR to consider constituting committees which function with the highest degree of independence and includes a retired Judge of the superior judiciary, an experienced tax practitioner, and senior serving or retired officers of the FBR with distinguished record and impeccable credentials with the mandate to timely examine each case before a decision is made to file a reference before the High Court or a petition before this/Supreme Court---The FBR may also consider undertaking review of all pending cases in order to determine whether the questions of law sought to be agitated therein already stand settled by judgments of superior courts---Leave to appeal was declined---Petition, filed by department, was dismissed.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE UNIT III ZONE-CANTT, RTO, RAWALPINDI vs UMER TARIQ KHAN — 2026 PLD 296 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD