Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 235

Law: Constitution of Pakistan

Section: 199

Law: Regulation of Generation Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997

Section: 12-G, 7(2)(g)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) S. 235, proviso to & First Sched., Pt. IV, Div IV---Electricity consumer---Advance tax, deduction / collection of---Name in Active Taxpayers' List---Scope---Petitioner, being a residential tenant (household/domestic consumer) filed the constitutional petition challenging the purported recovery of sales tax and income tax claiming he was not subject to the deduction of income tax under S.235 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Validity---Section 235 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 , though , provides that there shall be a collection of advance tax at the rates specified in Division IV of Part-IV of the First Schedule on the amount of electricity bill of a commercial or industrial or domestic consumer, however, the proviso thereto saves those whose names appear on the Active Taxpayers' List---The petitioner is unable to express in any form whatsoever if the petitioner's name had appeared as an Active Tax Payer hence on account of petitioner's own default such provision for any beneficial gain could not be applied in the petitioner's case---Constitutional petition, filed by electricity consumer, was dismissed. (b) Constitution of Pakistan Art. 199---Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act (XL of 1997), Ss. 12-G & 7(2)(g)---Electricity tariff, challenging of---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---An alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner / consumer under the provisions of Ss. 12-G & 7(2)(g) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (NEPRA Act)---Therefore , the High Court can not exercise jurisdiction in the matter at hand---Even otherwise , neither any policy of the federal government has been challenged that covers a challenge to the recovery of surcharge/additional surcharge, nor it could be said to be arbitrary and/or against public policy---Furthermore, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate if any of the terms and conditions of NEPRA with K. Electric as licensee was/is violative of NEPRA Act, 1997 or rules framed thereunder for the determination of tariff rates…