SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J. This writ petition calls into question show-cause notice dated 21.06.2023 issued by Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue/respondent No.4.
2. When inquired from the learned counsel regarding the maintainability of this writ petition against the show-cause notice simpliciter, it is alleged that respondent No.4 had no jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice. It is stated that the petitioner entered into a scheme of arrangement with Messrs Lottee Akhtar Beverages (Pvt.) Limited (Lottee) which was approved by this Court on 26.06.2018 whereafter the bifurcated assets of the petitioner stood vested in Lottee. It is stated that the show-cause notice, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner, sold/transferred its taxable activity to Lottee which was an unregistered person on the effective date of the scheme of arrangement and as such the petitioner was liable to make payment of the sales tax in terms of subsection (1) of section 49 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (the Act). Learned counsel submits that the transfer of assets took place on the basis of order dated 26.06.2018 and as such section 48 of the Act was not applicable to the said transaction.
3. The allegation that respondent No.4 lacked authority or jurisdiction of the show-cause notice is misplaced. The allegations made in the show-cause notice may or may not be tenable or the provisions of section 49 of the Act may or may not be attracted to the transaction in question, this per se, however, does not demonstrate absence of jurisdiction in respondent No.4 to issue the show-cause notice. The petitioner has since filed reply to the show-cause notice and the matter is now pending before respondent No.4. Any order passed by respondent No.4 on the show-cause notice is appealable under the Act.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Inland Revenue and others v. Jahangir Khan Tareen and others 2022 SCMR 92 laid down the law in relation to the challenge made to the show- cause notice by holding as follows: A show-cause notice is delivered to a person by an authority in order to get the reply back with a reasonable cause as to why a particular action should not be taken against him, with regard to the defaulting act. By and large, it is a well-defined and well-structured process to provide the alleged defaulter with a fair chance to respond the allegation and explain is position within reasonable time frame. Even in case of an adverse order, the remedies are provided under the tax laws with different hierarchy or chain of command. The court may take up writs to challenge the show- cause notice if it is found to be barred by law or abuse of process of the court. The abuse of process is the use of legal process for an improper purpose incompatible with the lawful function of the process by one with an ulterior motive. In its broadest sense, abuse of process may be defined as misuse or pervention of regularly issued legal process for a purpose not justified by the nature of the process. Whereas coram non judice is a Latin word meant for "not before a judge," is a legal term typically used to indicate a legal proceeding that is outside the presence of a judge or with improper venue or without jurisdiction. In the case of Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others (2016 SCMR 842), this court held that where a special law provides legal remedy for the resolution of a dispute, the intention of the legislature in creating such remedy is that the disputes falling within the ambit of such forum be taken only before it for resolution. Such bypass of the proper forum is contrary to the intention of the provisions of Article 199 (1) of the Constitution which confers jurisdiction on the High Court only and only when there is no adequate remedy is available under any law. Where adequate forum is fully functional, the High Court must deprecate such tendency at the very initial stage and relegate the parties to seek remedy before the special forum created under the special law to which the controversy relates.
12. At this point in time, the respondent has only been issued a show-cause notice to submit the reply which does not mean or pre-empt that the issuance of show-cause will entail or lead to an adverse order or action against the respondent No.1. It is most commonly noticed that whenever a show-cause notice is issued by the hierarchy provided under the tax laws calling upon the taxpayer to submit the reply, they immediately challenge the show-cause notice in writ jurisdiction with the presumption or presupposition that the show-cause notice means an adverse order against them, so in our considerate appraisal abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause-notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the concerned authorities must be the normal rule. The challenge to show-cause notice in writ jurisdiction at premature stages and tendency to bypass the remedy provided under the relevant statute is by and large deprecated and disapproved in many dictums laid down in local and foreign judgments in which courts have considered the interference as an act of denouncing and fettering the rights conferred on the statutory functionaries specially constituted for the purpose to initially decide the matter.
5. In view of the law laid by the Supreme Court, this writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.