MUHAMMAD HAMZA KHAN vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Ss — 2026 PTD 895 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD HAMZA KHAN VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Ss. 14, 45, 45B, second proviso & 46---Compulsory registration, assailing of---Forum(s)---Petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Tribunal) against his compulsorily registration which was returned to him on the premise that it is not appealable under S. 45 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ('the Act')---Validity---Section 46 of the Act, while governing the procedure for filing appeals before the Tribunal, explicitly provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), or any person other than a State-Owned Enterprise where the second proviso to Section 45B applies, may prefer an appeal before the Tribunal within thirty days of the receipt of such order while the term "Appeals" is also provided under Section 45B of Act---Second proviso of Section 45B of Act clearly reveals that the legislature has conferred a discretionary right upon a registered person to directly file an appeal before the Tribunal without first availing the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under said section---Said proviso provides an optional course to the registered person, enabling him either to avail the appellate remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals) or to bypass the said forum and directly approach the Tribunal against the impugned order---The intent of the legislature behind incorporating the said proviso is to provide flexibility in the appellate mechanism and to ensure that the registered person is not compelled to undergo the intermediate appellate stage if he opts to seek redress directly before the Tribunal---Therefore, the second proviso of S. 45B of Act clearly recognizes and protects the right of the registered person to directly invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal---Combined and harmonious reading of Ss. 45B and 46 of the Act clearly demonstrates that a registered person has two legally recognized appellate options namely (1) to file an appeal before the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), and thereafter approach the Appellate Tribunal; or (ii) to directly file an appeal before the Tribunal by virtue of the second proviso to S. 45B of the Act---Impugned act of Tribunal(Respondent No.3) in refusing to receive and entertain the appeal of the petitioner amounts to an unlawful denial of the petitioner's statutory right of appeal provided under S.46 of the Act, and the order passed under S.14 of the Act by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Respondent No.1), which was impugned before Tribunal (Respondent No.3), was clearly appealable in terms of S. 46(1) read with the proviso to S. 45B of the Act---On returning the appeal by Tribunal (respondent No.3), the petitioner was deprived of his lawful right, which is highly unjustified---Where a statute confers a right along with a prescribed remedy, the concerned authority is under a legal obligation to facilitate the exercise of such right rather than obstruct it--- Therefore, the action of Tribunal (respondent No.3) amounted to acting without lawful authority and was of no legal effect---The impugned refusal had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and had effectively deprived the petitioner of the statutory remedy provided under the Act, which warranted interference by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction---High Court directed the Tribunal (Respondent No.3) to receive, entertain and decide the appeal of the petitioner filed under S. 46 of the Act in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD HAMZA KHAN vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Ss — 2026 PTD 895 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PTD