| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3044 |
Islamabad High Court
1. W.P. No. 1469 of 2021 2. W.P. No. 3352 of 2022 3. W.P. No. 2216 of 2023
Presented By: (MUHAMMAD ASIF) JUDGE
Petitioners By : Muhammad Waqas Malik, Advocate
Respondent By : Ch. Kamal Hayat, Advocate for respondent No. 6 Ms. Shaista Tabassum, AAG. Ms. Sumaira Khursheed, State Counsel. Mr. Asif Jahangir Khan, Inspector (Excise and Taxation) Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025
1. W.P. No. 1469 of 2021 2. W.P. No. 3352 of 2022 3. W.P. No. 2216 of 2023
Presented By: (MUHAMMAD ASIF) JUDGE
Petitioners By : Muhammad Waqas Malik, Advocate
Respondent By : Ch. Kamal Hayat, Advocate for respondent No. 6 Ms. Shaista Tabassum, AAG. Ms. Sumaira Khursheed, State Counsel. Mr. Asif Jahangir Khan, Inspector (Excise and Taxation) Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025
Omer Khalid Anwar
VERSUS
FOP through the Secretary Establishment, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad, & Others, Jibran Ali Versus Director Excise and Taxation Department & 2 others. & Muhammad Musarat ul Haq Versus Federation of Pakistan & Others.
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 199
Law: Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965
Section: 115
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section:
Summary: The petitioner, Omer Khalid Anwer, challenged an order dated 13.10.2020 issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer (MRA), Islamabad, which confiscated his Toyota Land Cruiser (Registration No. YY-431) in favor of the State. The vehicle, originally registered in 2013 and transferred to the petitioner in 2018 after multiple inspections and the issuance of a Vehicle Identification Card (VIC), was impounded in 2020 during a transfer process. A Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report indicated that the chassis number had been tampered with and replaced. The petitioner alleged procedural violations, including the failure to serve mandatory notices and the misuse of authority. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. The Court noted that while the petitioner had filed a departmental appeal that was decided in November 2020, he failed to avail himself of the further mandatory statutory remedy of a Revision before the Director General, Excise & Taxation. Reaffirming settled legal principles, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked when an alternate and efficacious statutory remedy remains unexhausted. Tagline: Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not a substitute for statutory remedies; a writ petition is not maintainable if the petitioner fails to exhaust the available departmental revision process. ORDER; MUHAMMAD ASIF, J. By way of this single order, I intend to decide the titled writ petitions, as they are interlinked. Through the petition i.e. (W.P. No. 1469/2025), the petitioner has impugned the Order dated 13.10.2020 issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer, (“Respondent No. 03”) whereby vehicle No. YY-431, Toyota Land Cruiser Chassis No. Before Chemical Treatment JTEBU253605106297, Chassis No. after Chemical TreatmentJTEBU29J000003318 was confiscated in favour of the State/Government of Pakistan. The facts material to the adjudication of the present petition shall be considered at a subsequent stage in this judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Respondent No. 3 has failed to duly consider the important…