Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005

Section: 28-A(6)

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 40B, 40C

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 18

  SUMMARY It is evident from the notice dated 12.12.2025 that the Assistant Commissioner was merely suspecting that duty-paid unmanufactured tobacco might be used in the manufacturing of cigarettes. Such suspicion, however, cannot be equated with the statutory requirement of “reasons to believe” as provided under sub-rule (6) of Rule 28-A ibid, for sealing the manufacturing unit of the petitioner. Article 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, recognizes the right to freedom of business and profession, subject to certain regulations. Such regulations, as well as any executive action or intervention in lawful trade, are obviously subject to judicial review by the superior courts. Any misuse or excess of authority by the executive can be corrected by a constitutional court through the issuance of appropriate directions, ensuring that the lawful trade conducted by citizens of Pakistan is not unnecessarily hindered. A constitutional petition is competent if an order is passed by a court or authority in excess of its jurisdiction, even where the remedy of appeal or revision against such order is available, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.   The petitioner company challenged the sealing of its cigarette manufacturing unit and GLT (Green Leaf Tobacco) godown by tax authorities under Rule 28-A(6) of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005. The sealing was based on recovery of 2.75 million kg unmanufactured tobacco and suspicion that it was used in non-duty-paid cigarette production. The petitioner argued that: sealing was done without lawful “reasons to believe” it was based only on suspicion no proper verification or reconciliation was done it violated Article 18 (freedom of trade) The respondents argued: alternative remedy exists (show cause before tax authority) action was valid under tax laws The Court held: “reasons to believe” must be based on tangible material, not mere suspicion sealing power under Rule 28-A(6) was misused no proper verification or inquiry was conducted constitutional jurisdiction is maintainable despite alternate remedy in cases of jurisdictional error or…