' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---Through instant petition, the petitioner has sought following relief(s):-- (i)Declare that the impugned Summon/Notice issued by the Respondent No,4 is illegal, mala fide in excess of its jurisdiction and thus ab-initio void and of no legal effect, thereby suspend the same. Ii) Declare that the Respondents have no jurisdiction to initiate prosecution proceeding against the Petitioner under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 in the absence of any liability finally adjudged by quasi-judicial hierarchy. Iii) Prohibit/restrain the Respondents jointly and severely or through their agents, employees and servant or any one claiming through them from taking any adverse or coercive action on the basis of impugned Summon against the Petitioner or his employees and from initiating any criminal proceeding including suspension/ blacklisting of Sales Tax. Registration of the Petitioner and from harassing him in any manner whatsoever. Iv) Grant such further relief which this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the cost of Petition."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned Notice dated 27.01.2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Inland Revenue, Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Zone IV, Regional Tax Office-II, Karachi, under Section 37 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and submits that since the subject Notice is vague and ambiguous, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
Per learned counsel, in the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner, the impugned Notice has been issued without any lawful authority, whereas, the petitioner has been threatened for coercive action, and there is apprehension that the respondent department, will proceed against the petitioner by initiating criminal proceedings. It has been prayed that instant petition may be allowed and the impugned Notice under Section 37 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 may be quashed.
3. Record shows that Instant petition was filed on 06,02.2014, whereas, on 14.02.2014 while issuing notices to the respondehts, petitioner was directed to appear before the concerned authorities and to submit response to the impugned Show Cause Notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner was inquired as to whether any reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice has been furnished to which, he has candidly stated that the petitioner has not submitted any response to the impugned Show Cause Notice, in view of pendency of instant petition, moreover, according to learned counsel, the Show Cause is liable to be set-aside for being violative of express provisions of law. Record further reveals that after 14.02.2014, the petitioner was not vigilant to proceed with the matter, which was fixed in Court on 20.08.2015, when no one shown appearance on behalf of the petitioner without any intimation, therefore, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, application seeking restoration of petition was filed and vide order dated 19.01.2016, the petition was restored to its original position.
4. We are of the opinion that mere issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 37 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, whereby, petitioner has been confronted with set of allegations to explain his position, does not give rise to any valid cause of action to file a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to satisfy as to maintainability of instant petition, in response to which, it has been contended that since, the Notice is vague and does not disclose the details, therefore, the same is liable 'to be quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution. From perusal of section 37 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, it appears that any officer of Inland Revenue has the authority to summon any person to give evidence and to produce documents in respect of any inquiry under the Act, whereas, such person is required to attend either in person or through some authorized agent to submit response to such Notice.
Perusal of the impugned Notice reflects that the petitioner has been confronted with set of allegations, however, if such allegations, according to petitioner, are vague or ill-founded, the petitioner can ask for further details and material to enable the petitioner to submit proper response and reply to such Notice in accordance with law. Though, we are in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that merely on the basis of some vague allegations, and without confronting the petitioner with the set of allegations and the material, no adverse order can be passed under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 as it will be violative of Principles of Natural Justice and fair trial. However, at this premature stage, when merely a Notice has been issued in terms of Section 37 of the Act, we are not inclined to interfere with such proceedings in this matter. Moreover, on mere issuance of a Show Cause Notice, unless the same lacks jurisdiction, or there is some patent illegality or perversity manifest from the record, constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked, as it will amount to ignore or bypass the relevant forums and remedies as provided under the special law, particularly the fiscal laws i,e, Sales Tax Act, 1990; Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; Customs Act, 1969 or Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 etc. Reliance in this regard can be placed in the case of Roche Pakistan Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others (2001 PTD 3090), Sitara Chemical Industries Ltd. And another v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2003 PTD 1285) and I. C.1. Pakistan Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and 3 others (2006 PTD 778). Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the instant case, which is premature and devoid of any merits.
However, before parting with above order, we may observe that the respondent department shall not take any adverse action unless complete opportunity is provided to the petitioner, and shall confront the petitioner with the inquiry and the material, if any, who shall submit response to such Show Cause accordingly; where after, appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law.