| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4287 = 2026 SLD 4287 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No.2399 of 2016
Presented By: (INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Petitioner by: M/s Haider Ali and Muhammad Saqib Nafees, Advocates in W.P Nos.2399/2016 & 2400/2016. Mr. Adeel Wahid, Advocate in W.P Nos.2565/2016, 2571/2016 & 50/2021. Mr. Usman Shaukat, Advocate in W.P No.909/2017.
Respondents/FBR by: Mr.Riaz Hussain Azam Bopera and Mr. Moiz Riaz Azam Bopera, Advocates in W.P Nos.2399/2016, 2400/2016 & 909/2017. Mr. Hassan Ali Khan, Advocate in W.P Nos.2565/2016, 2571/2016 & 50/21. Assisted by: Muhammad Yahya Khan Niazi, Judicial Law Clerk. Date of Hearing: 05.03.2025.
Writ Petition No.2399 of 2016
Presented By: (INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Petitioner by: M/s Haider Ali and Muhammad Saqib Nafees, Advocates in W.P Nos.2399/2016 & 2400/2016. Mr. Adeel Wahid, Advocate in W.P Nos.2565/2016, 2571/2016 & 50/2021. Mr. Usman Shaukat, Advocate in W.P No.909/2017.
Respondents/FBR by: Mr.Riaz Hussain Azam Bopera and Mr. Moiz Riaz Azam Bopera, Advocates in W.P Nos.2399/2016, 2400/2016 & 909/2017. Mr. Hassan Ali Khan, Advocate in W.P Nos.2565/2016, 2571/2016 & 50/21. Assisted by: Muhammad Yahya Khan Niazi, Judicial Law Clerk. Date of Hearing: 05.03.2025.
OMV Maurice Energy Limited
VS
. Pakistan, through Secretary Finance and others
Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005
Section: 4, 10-A
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section:
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section:
Case Summary The petitioners challenged consolidated Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue under both the Federal Excise Act, 2005 (FEA) and the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (STA). The petitioners argued that these were two separate fiscal statutes creating distinct liabilities and procedures, and therefore a single SCN covering both laws was without jurisdiction. The Court accepted the petitioners' contention and held that FEA, 2005 and STA, 1990 are independent statutes, dealing with separate taxes and taxable events. The tax authorities cannot combine proceedings under both statutes through one consolidated SCN unless the law expressly authorizes such a procedure. The Court further held that where the very foundation of proceedings is unlawful, all subsequent proceedings based upon that foundation also fall. Accordingly, the consolidated SCNs were declared unlawful, without jurisdiction and void ab initio. However, the department was given liberty to initiate separate proceedings under each statute in accordance with law. Tagline “A single consolidated Show Cause Notice under two distinct fiscal statutes is impermissible; proceedings must be initiated separately under the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and Sales Tax Act, 1990.” ORDER; INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J:- This judgment shall decide the instant writ petition as well as the writ petitions mentioned in the Annexure-A involving common questions of law and facts. Brief facts are that the petitioner in the instant petition is a Pakistan branch office of a non-resident company engaged in oil and gas exploration, production and sale. The Petitioner challenges the mala fide and legality of the Show Cause Notice dated 03.06.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue being ultra vires to the Federal Excise Act, 2005 (“FEA, 2005”), Sales Tax Act, 1990 (“STA, 1990”), and the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution). Similarly, in the connected writ petitions, the petitioners (in their respective writ petitions) have challenged the mala fide and legality of the Show Cause Notice (“SNC”) dated…