' Petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Society, registered under the Cooperative Laws, who filed its income-tax return for assessm ent years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 on their respective dates. Order of assessm ent passed on these returns have been challenged by way of appeals which are reported to be pending before respondent No, 1 . Pending these appeals, respondent No,3 issued a notice under section 138(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on 21-5-2004 whereafter respondent No,3 attached bank accounts of the petitioner as the income-tax was not paid by it.
Aggrieved of the action of attachment of accounts petitioner filed an application for ad interim injunction before respondent No,1, but the same has not been taken cognizance by him. It is contended that respondent No,1 is bound under law to decide appeal as well as application for grant of ad interim injunction in accordance with law, one way or the other, but he failed to discharge his statutory obligations necessitating filing of instant petition. It is submitted that there is every likelihood of acceptance of appeal because the assessment impugned therein is highly excessive and contrary to the law applicable. Petitioner being a Cooperative Society, is said to have not acted deliberately in violation of the assessment order rather it awaits decision of appeal already filed, in this manner order of attachment of bank accounts of the petitioner is graded to be harsh and not warranted by law.
2. Heard. Record perused. Assertions of the petitioner revolve around factual disputes, truthfulness or otherwise of which cannot be determined without inquiry and recording of evidence and this course is not permissible in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Younas and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others (1993 SCM R 618). In spite of handicap of Constitutional jurisdiction noted above, it is amazing that two applications by the petitioner were moved one to respondent No,2 and the other before respondent No,1 for stay of the recovery of the demanded amount, but none of those has been attended by the concerned officials. Petitioner is not a private individual who will defy the appellate order if its appeal goes against it. This is the minimum which a citizen/a body corporate, expects of a statutory, functionary to decide his matter according to law and the norms applicable, at the earliest. Since the bank account of the petitioner has been attached by A respondent No,2, the petitioner will not be in a position to even discharge day to day obligations besides paying the salaries of its employees and other utility bills. I accordingly, direct respondent No,1 to decide appeal of the petitioner or at least its application seeking ad interim injunction immediately, preferably within a period of one month.
Order of respondent No,2 attaching bank accounts shall remain ' suspended till 1-7-2004.
3. Compliance report shall be submitted to Deputy Registrar (Judieial) of this 'Court. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.