SAYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J. - Petitioner was an employee of National Bank of Pakistan, who remained posted in Gilgit from 27.5.1992 to 30.6.1994. Income Tax Returns were submitted by the petitioner, as non-resident in Pakistan, claiming exemption granted by the CBR on the salary of employees. Respondent No. 2 found the petitioner to be not entitled to the exemption as he could not prove to hold non-residents status in Pakistan. Assessment was made u/S. 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 creating some demand against the petitioner.
2. Petitioner challenged the order of respondent No. 2 by way of appeal, it is claimed that the order was set aside with the direction that the proceedings be held de novo, it is maintained that respondent No. 2, after obtaining information, made assessment u/Ss. 62/132 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 vide order dated 30.6.1997 holding the petitioner to be entitled to exemption vide CBR Circular No. 32-I.T.L.J.T/76 of 1987, dated 22.3.1987.
3. Later, respondent No. 2 issued show-cause notice u/S. 156 of Income Tax Ordinance, claiming that the income of the relevant year was taxable in view of judgment passed in C.P. No. 103/94.
According to the petitioner, he in his reply, questioned the jurisdiction to reopen the matter on the ground that the subject-matter did not fall within the purview of Section 156 of the Ordinance.
4. The proceedings u/S. 156 of the Ordinance were still pending when respondent No. 1 allegedly invoked the jurisdiction u/S. 66-A of the Ordinance, by issuing show- cause notice dated 24.4.1998.
Petitioner submitted his reply to the notice and tendered certain explanations. Objections were also raised to the exercise of jurisdiction u/S. 66-A of the Ordinance, it is claimed that respondent No. 2 had been directed to issue I.T. No. 30 along with demand notice, during the pendency of proceedings u/S. 156 of the Ordinance, jn this backdrop, the petitioner has filed the present Constitutional petition, to challenge the action of respondents and also the notice, issued to him.
5. The respondents, in their reply/comments, have not only refuted the allegations on merit but challenged the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the matter was still to be adjudicated upon the competent authority and that the petitioner will have a remedy of appeal etc. In the hierarchy of the Income Tax Ordinance and, therefore, filing of the Constitutional petition will not be permissible.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner can raise all the objections to the exercise of jurisdiction, either u/S. 156 of Income Tax Ordinance or u/S. 66-A of the Ordinance and the respondents will be duty-bound to attend to the objections and determine the same by recording a well- reasoned order. The matter will be reopened only if the objection as to the exercise of jurisdiction is over-ruled. Every quasi- judicial authority is under legal obligation to consider the objections as to its jurisdiction, if raised in the proceedings and to decide it as a preliminary step, before exercising the jurisdiction or invoking authority under the relevant law. The respondents are expected to first satisfy that the circumstances warrant for indulgence under the relevant provisions and that they have the jurisdiction to reopen the matter.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the objection as to the jurisdiction would be attended to by the authority concerned as a preliminary step and will be decided in accordance with law.
8. jn the circumstances noted supra, this petition is disposed of with the observations that the petitioner should raise all objections to the jurisdiction and also on the factual side, before the respondents who will decide the objections as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary step and will proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision, either on the question of jurisdiction or otherwise, he shall be at liberty to challenge the order in appeal, before the forum in the hierarchy of jurisdiction under Income Tax Ordinance.