MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J. --- This is a suit for declaration, injunction and damages,' On 12.4.2017 the injdnction application was fixed for orders. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued on the behest of the defendant No 3 on 7.11.2017 raids were conducted at the premises of the plaintiff situated at FC-1, Eastern Industrial Zone Port Qasim and on 11:4.2017 at the warehouse of the plaintiff situated at plot No. 48, West Wharf.
2.The crux of the arguments of the plaintiff. Was that no authorization letter or notice was placed before plaintiff as to whether this raid was authorized by Commissioner or not. He had further argued that there was nothing pending against the plaintiff for which raids were conducted and the entire action was based on mala fide of the department. As an interim measure the Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the plaintiff on account of aforesaid raids.
Yesterday learned, counsel for the plaintiff filed contempt application in which he complained that the defendants have blocked his Sales Tax Registration Number (STRN) detpite interim Orders: Notice was issued to the alleged contemnors for today:
3. Today, Mr. Muhammad Aqeel Qureshi, Advocate has filed vakalatnarna for defendant NO. 3 as well as alleged contemnor Ms. Nina Akram, Commissioner Zone-II, -CRTO The Commissioner Zone- II, CRTO submits that the interim order passed OR 1,2.4.2017 was not in her knowledge, therefore, Plaintiff s STRN was blocked. They undertake that the STRN. of the plaintiff will be removed from suspension today during office hours. The officers also placed on record a notice dated 9,3.2017 WIS:01 was issued to 05 -different companies including the Plaintiff. Mr. Jawahir Lal, Director of the plaintiff submits that no notice was ever served on the" plaintiff" office. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that if the department has any query regarding stock, inventory or production they may issue notice and the plaintiff will produce all relevant, documents for further proceedings in accordance with law. The officers present in Court submit that in order to proceed. further notice will be issued to the plaintiff under Section 25 and or 37 of the Sales Tax Act and they will also provide ample opportunity to the plaintiff in accordance with law..
4. The !learned, counsel for the plantiff agreed to this statement however he submits that on earliar visits some ledgers were taken away by the department. In case notice is issued for production of any such document :which is already in possession of Income Tax Department, the plaintiff will highlight, the same in reply, to the notice.
5. Then suit alongwith pending applications is disposed of in the above terms.