' SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.--- The main grievance of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner-Company has been selected for audit in violation of the procedure laid down in 'section 214C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance"), section 72B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and section 42B of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, inasmuch as, the Computer Ballot has not taken place and, therefore, the selection of the petitioner for audit as intimated through letters dated 2-12-2011, 7-2-2012 and 14-2-2012 of the respondents is without lawful authority. He further submitted that the audit can only be of the current year and in this regard placed reliance on letter issued by Federal Board of Revenue dated 5-10-2009. He lastly submitted that Rukhsana Yasmin, Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, LTU, Lahore, who has issued impugned letters dated 2-12-2011 has not been duly appointed to the said post.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record letter dated 19-1-2012 which shows that the respondent FBR, through Computer Ballot, has selected the petitioner for audit for tax year 2010 for the purposes of Income Tax, Sales Tax and Federal Excise Duty. The departmental representative, however, clarified that letters dated 2-12-2011 carry an incorrect date and in support thereof placed the relevant Dispatch Register before the Court, which showed that the said letters were actually dispatched on 2-2-2012 after the results of the Computer Ballot were consolidated through the above referred letter dated 19-1-2012.
3. Arguments heard.
4. The selection of the petitioner-company for audit has been done on the basis of random ballot of corporate cases conducted by the FBR under section 214C of the Ordinance, section 72B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and section 42B of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 as is evident from letter dated 19-1-2012 issued by Chief (Taxpayers Audit-III), FBR (Tax Payer's Audit Wing). Petitioner-company has been placed at Serial No,26 out of a total of 39 cases selected for audit.
5. Notification' dated 6-5-2010 clearly shows that Ms. Rukhsana Yasmin has been notified as Commissioner Inland Revenue (Enforcement) LTU, Lahore. Further, letter dated 5-10-2009, referred by the counsel for the petitioner to contend that the audit can only be for the current year, is actually an internal guideline issued by the FBR to its Collectorates which has outlived its utility after the insertion of the afore-noted sections in various tax laws, which do not provide for any such limitation.
6. It is sad to note that the petitioner without ascertaining the facts regarding random balloting by the FBR or issuance of notification in favour of the Commissioner Inland Revenue has irresponsibly rushed to this Court alleging, rather recklessly, on a sworn affidavit, that no balloting has taken place and no notification exists in favour of the Commissioner Inland Revenue. Approaching the court of law and more {{FOOT NOTE}} No,10866-M-IA/2010 ' particularly invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is a solemn and serious affair.
Before filing a writ petition the petitioner must verify the facts to the best of his ability and then venture to swear an affidavit in this regard. In the present case, the petitioner without any such effort decided to take a shot in the dark, as if playing a game of chance by using the process of this Court. It has transpired that the allegations raised in the petition are incorrect and an outcome of baseless C and hollow assumptions on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has been nonchalant and careless in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, which is deprecated.
7. This petition, for the above reasons, is not only without merit and frivolous but has also abused the process of this court. The petitioner has wasted valuable public time of the Court and unduly burdened its resources. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with compensatory costs D of Rs,35,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner. The costs shall be deposited with any charitable civil society organization in Punjab certified by the Pakistan Centre of Philanthropy (PCP)
(www.Pcp.Org.Pk) and a receipt thereof placed on the record within one month from today.
Reliance is placed on Kawas B. Aga and another v. City District Government, Karachi (CDGK) through Nazim-e-Ala and others (PLD 2010 Karachi 182), The Postmaster-General, Northern Punjab and (AJ&K), Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Bashir and 2 others (1998 SCMR 2386), Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department and others v. Roshan Din and others (PLD 2008 SC 132), Inayatullah v. Sh. Muhammad Yousaf and 19 others (1997 SCMR 1020), Mst. Afsana v. District Police Officer, (Operation), Khairpur and 5 others (2007 YLR 1618) and M.D. Tahir, Advocate v. Federal Government and others (PLD 1999 Lahore 409). Office is directed to place this file before this Court on the administrative side for appropriate orders in case the costs are not deposited within the time prescribed above.