| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1016 2026 SLD 1016 = 2026 PTD 475 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No.834 of 2025, decided on 14th November, 2025.
Presented By: Before Babar Sattar, J
Fahad Khan Tareen, Assistant Attorney General for
Respondents. Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmed Khokhar for FBR. Moazzam Habib along with
Respondent No.3. Malik Abdur Rehman, State Counsel.
Writ Petition No.834 of 2025, decided on 14th November, 2025.
Presented By: Before Babar Sattar, J
Fahad Khan Tareen, Assistant Attorney General for
Respondents. Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmed Khokhar for FBR. Moazzam Habib along with
Respondent No.3. Malik Abdur Rehman, State Counsel.
ABDUL QADIR
VS
. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Cabinet Secretary Government of Pakistan, Pak. Secretariat, Islamabad and others
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 24A
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 2(2A), 11, 25(5), 33, 37A, 72B
JUDGMENT/ORDER/FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS This judgment from the Islamabad High Court (2026 P T D 475), authored by Babar Sattar, J., establishes a landmark precedent regarding the protection of a citizen's fundamental right to travel against arbitrary executive actions, particularly in the context of alleged tax defaults. The Case: Abdul Qadir vs. Federation of Pakistan The petitioner, Abdul Qadir, challenged the placement of his name on three "stop-lists": the Exit Control List (ECL), the Passport Control List (PCL), and the Provisional National Identification List (PNIL). The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had recommended these actions alleging he was a Director of a company involved in "tax fraud" (fake invoices). Key Legal Principles Established 1. The Requirement of a "Speaking Order" The Court ruled that the executive cannot place a citizen on the PCL or ECL in a "mechanical fashion." Under the General Clauses Act (Section 24-A) and the Passports Rules, 2021, any order curtailing liberty must be a Speaking Order—meaning it must clearly state the specific reasons and grounds. Due Process: Under Article 10A, a citizen has a right to a fair trial and due process. This means they must usually be heard before their rights are restricted. 2. "Defaulter" vs. "Accused" in Tax Matters A central finding of the Court was the definition of a "tax defaulter." The Ruling: A person cannot be labeled a "defaulter" merely because the FBR has formed an opinion or initiated an investigation. Adjudication Required: To be a defaulter under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, there must be a final finding after formal adjudicatory proceedings showing that a tax demand is outstanding and unpaid. The Result: Pending a final determination of guilt or liability, the State cannot inflict the "penalty" of restricting travel. 3. PNIL and Unfettered Discretion The Court took particular aim at the PNIL, noting it has no "statutory parentage" (it is not based on a specific law passed by Parliament) and often relies on internal agency orders. Using such lists without a written,…