COCA COLA EXPORT CORPORATION PAKISTAN BRANCH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE S

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

COCA COLA EXPORT CORPORATION PAKISTAN BRANCH VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE S. 74---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 10A & 199---Condonation of delay---Opportunity of hearing, non-affording of---Due process, absence of---Judicial review of public ations---Fairness, due process of law and natural justice are important constitutional elements as grounds for judicial review of public actions ; they fall to be dealt with under two provisions, one constitutional and the other statutory---The constitutional provisions are Art. 4 and Art. 10A of the Constitution which guarantee fair trial and due process of law---In the presence of a statutory provision like S.24A of General Clauses Act, 1897, it is hard to see how our Courts can shy away from enforcing the duty to give reasons where authorities are acting in an administrative or quasi-judicial capacity---The mandatory requirements to give reasons must be applied with complete vigor, particularly in financial matters---High Court is mindful of the fact and does not expect the revenue officers to demonstrate as if they are trained legal minds and must know the jurisprudence to entirety, however, the least which is expected from them is that their orders must be well founded and rooted in reasons on the basis of plain meanings and contours of a statutory provisions, which they tend to invoke---Even though the right of reasoned order is not formally recognized as one of the principles of natural justice, it is one in spirit and practice, continually gaining prominence as a tenet of natural justice---Thus, it can be said: "Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless"---In the matters pertaining to the rights of the citizens/persons, particularly, where it is complained that rights guaranteed under Arts. 4 and 10A of the Constitution have been breached, the effective supervision by the Courts comes in and such supervision for guarding the alleged infringed rights requires the rationale for the duty to give reasons---Wouldn't a duty arise in any case where the underlying decision is subject to judicial review?---Courts may run into some difficulties when there is an attempt to justify a reason-giving requirement on this basis---Some limitations must be devised---Supply of reasons and openness as arationale for the present case is coherent with effective supervision as a general rationale for a duty to give reasons---Separation of powers, rule of law and good administration concerns can provide justification for a reason-giving requirement even in situations where the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions make no such imposition on administrative decision-makers---Article 4 of the Constitution is the bedrock of the Rule of Law and an antithesis to the rule of men in our country; it is a restraint on the executive and judicial organs of the State to abide by the rule of law---Article 4 of the Constitution ordains that it is an inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be and any person whenever he is in Pakistan, to have and enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law---Thus, the impugned order being devoid of any reasons, having been issued without an opportunity of hearing, could not withstand any test of due process and administration of justice---High Court set-aside the impugned order with the result that the Show-Cause Notices issued on the basis of the Impugned Order were declared bad in law and of no legal effect---Constitutional petition, filed by Company/ Registered Person, was allowed accordingly.

COCA COLA EXPORT CORPORATION PAKISTAN BRANCH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE S — 2026 PTD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PTD