JAWAD HASSAN, J. At the outset, learned counsel submits that this is second writ petition filed by the Petitioner on similar cause. He explains that in earlier Writ Petition No.2309 of 2024, this Court, vide order dated 16.08.2024, remitted the matter to the Federal Board of Revenue (the "Board") with a direction to resolve the issue after providing proper hearing to all concerned, including the Petitioner, strictly as per law within a period of one month in light of the law/judgments mentioned in the said order, by granting it interim relief as stopgap measures, in the meanwhile. He submits that pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the Petitioner approached the concerned authority but since committee of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (the "ADR") has not been established so far, he has again knocked the door of this Court for grant of interim relief on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the judgments reported as Shell Pakistan Limited v.
Government of Punjab and others (2020 PTD 1607) and Shaheen Merchant v. Federation of Pakistan/National Tariff Commission and others (2021 PTD 2126). He next argues that after the amendment in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the "Ordinance") by insertion of Section 134A(1) through Finance Act, 2023, which mentions procedure regarding the ADR, it is mandatory for the Board to establish a committee for resolution of any dispute through mediation but the same has not been formed thus far, hence, the Petitioner has against knocked the door of this Court.
2. Heard. For ease of the matter, relevant Section 134A(1) of the Ordinance is reproduced hereunder: 134A. Alternative Dispute Resolution.- [(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance, or the rules made thereunder, an aggrieved person in connection with any dispute pertaining to-
(a) the liability of tax of fifty million rupees or above against the aggrieved person or admissibility of refund, 1W the case may bc;
(b) the extent of waiver of default surcharge and penalty; or
(c) any other specific relief required to resolve the dispute, may apply, except where criminal proceedings have been initiated, to the Board for the appointment of a committee for the resolution of any hardship or dispute mentioned in detail in the application: Provided that where the aggrieved person is a state-owned enterprises (SOE), the limit of tax liability of fifty million rupees or above mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (1) shall not apply and it shall be mandatory for such aggrieved SOE to apply to the Board for the appointment of a committee for the resolution of any dispute under this section: Provided further that no suit, prosecution, or other legal proceedings shall lie against the SOE or the committee in relation to the dispute resolved under this section."
First proviso to Section 134A(1) of the Ordinance clearly manifests that it shall be "mandatory" for an aggrieved state-owned enterprises (the "SOE") having limit of tax liability of fifty million rupees or above to approach the Board for the appointment of a committee for the resolution of any dispute. The ADR is the result of landmark pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the issue of mediation. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgments reported as Federation of Pakistan and others v. Attock Petroleum Ltd. Islamabad (2007 SCMR 1095), Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs RYK Mills (2023 SCMR 1856), Province of Punjab through Secretary G&W, Lahore and others v. M/s Maroon Construction Company, Government Contractor and others (2024 SCMR 947). Recently, this Court has also expanded scope of the mediation in the case of Strategic Plans Division and another v. Punjab Revenue Authority and others (PLD 2024 Lahore 545), in which this Court, while dealing with an issue under the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012, has discussed in detail the Anthology of the ADR by highlighting its importance, relevant paragraph-3 of which is reproduced below: "3. The development of Alternate Dispute Resolution ("ADR") in Pakistan has been influenced by the need to alleviate the overburdened judicial system which aims to provide more efficient, cost- effective and amicable dispute resolution alternatives, reducing the burden on Courts and improving access to justice for the public. This approach was first time introduced in tax matters by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Federation of Pakistan and others v. Attock Petroleum Ltd.
Islamabad" (2007 SCMR 1095) ("Attack Petroleum case") holding that "it would facilitate settlement of tax dispute without intervention of court through mediation and negotiation". This concept of "ADR" in tax disputes has further been strengthened by Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs RYK Mills" (2023 SCMR 1856) ("RYK Mills case') holding that "issuance of as show-cause notice also acts as a tool to resolve the issue in the prelitigation stage and a show-cause notice can also be viewed as being akin to alternate dispute resolution as it provides a pre-litigation opportunity for the recipient to present their position and show cause". Further, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Province of Punjab through Secretary C & W, Lahore and others v. M/s Haroon Construction Company, Government Contractor and others"
(2024 SCMR 947) ("Haroon Construction Company case") held as well that "the courts should not only encourage mediation but also exhibit a pro-settlement bias and a pro-mediation bias". The above reproduced principles and developed jurisprudence with regard to "APR" is binding within the meaning of Article 189 of the "Constitution". In this case, the Court is intending to dispose and decide the controversy amongst parties by adopting "ADR" for resolution of dispute in the light of guidelines, principles and jurisprudence laid by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in above referred judgments."
Reliance can also be placed on others judgments of this Court, reported as Faisal Zafar and another v. Siraj-ud-Din and 4 others (2024 CLD 1), Netherlands Financierings Maatschanpij Voor Ontwikkelingslanden N. V. (F.M.O) v. Morgah Valley Limited and SECP '(PLD 2024 Lahore 315), Sohail Nisar v. Nadeem Nisar and others (2024 LHC 1435) (LHC Citation), Messrs U.I.G. (Pvt.)
Limited through Director and 3 others v. Muhammad Imran Qureshi (2011 CLC 758). Pertinent to mention here that the Sindh High Court has also followed the concept of mediation in various cases, one of which is (2024 CLD 1121), titled "Shehzad Arshad v. Pervez Arshad and 2 others".
3. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Federal Government to establish the necessary committee of the ADR as per provisions of Section 134A(1) of the Ordinance on immediate basis so that the litigant may not suffer and the tendency of overburdening the Court with unnecessary litigation may also curtail. In the meanwhile, since the committee of the ADR has not been established so far and the Petitioner has no forum to get the dispute resolved by way of mediation, it is directed that no coercive measures shall be taken against it, till establishment of the ADR committee.