Summary: (a) Leave to appeal---Acquittal---Appeal against judgment of High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur, dated 03.12.2024 in Constitution Petition No.D-1754 of 2023---Province of Sindh and others sought leave against respondent Gulab---Held, impugned judgment was well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of facts and law; no material irregularity or illegality, misreading or non-reading was found therein and no case for interference was made out. (b) Criminal trial---Prosecution case---Delay in reporting, failure to examine material witnesses and weak conduct of prosecution---Alleged incident took place on 10.06.2014 and was reported to police on 20.08.2014, i.e., after a delay of two months which the complainant failed to explain---Prosecution produced three witnesses (PW1, PW2 and PW3) who did not implicate the respondent, yet no application was made to declare them hostile---Prosecution failed to produce remaining witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, drawing a presumption that such witnesses would not have supported its case---Held, stance of prosecution before the trial court was very weak and verging on negligence on its part---No acquittal appeal was preferred by the State---Acquittal of respondent was neither the result of compromise nor on any technical ground, but purely on merit. (c) Prosecution---Monitoring of prosecutions---Court directed that copy of the order be forwarded to the Prosecutor General, Sindh, who shall ensure proper monitoring of all prosecutions under his office. Disposition: Petition dismissed and leave refused; copy of order to be forwarded to the Prosecutor General, Sindh for monitoring of prosecutions. C.P.L.A. No.201-K of 2025, order dated 18.06.2026 (Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.).

Summary: (a) Sales Tax Act, 1990----Ss.7 & 8(1)(b)---“Stock-in-trade”---Term not defined in statute---Interpretation of undefined commercial and taxation expression---Where an expression used in taxation or commercial legislation was not statutorily defined, its meaning was to be determined contextually by reference to legal, commercial, accounting and taxation usage---Ordinary English dictionaries, particularly those containing general or figurative meanings, could not conclusively determine the legal character of an asset used in business---Court was required to consider nature of business, actual use of asset, statutory scheme and relevant commercial practice---Meaning of “stock-in-trade” depended upon function for which goods were held and could not be determined merely from their physical description. (b) Sales Tax Act, 1990----S.8(1)(b)---Stock-in-trade---Plant and machinery---Functional test---Stock-in-trade ordinarily meant inventory, raw material, work in progress, finished goods or other goods and services normally held or offered for sale by a business---Plant and machinery constituted apparatus kept for permanent employment in carrying on business and did not form part of stock-in-trade---Functional test was whether subject asset was itself dealt with and sold in ordinary course of business or was an apparatus employed for carrying on business---Generator installed and used to provide power for manufacturing taxable supplies was an adjunct to industrial operations and constituted plant and machinery, not stock-in-trade, unless business itself consisted of trading in generators. Cited Cases: • Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647 • Benson v. The Yard Arm Club Ltd. 53 TC 67 (c) Taxation---Stock-in-trade and capital asset---Circulating capital and fixed capital---Distinction---Stock-in-trade formed part of circulating capital from which businessman earned profit by selling or parting with it, whereas plant and machinery formed part of fixed capital retained and employed to produce income---Nature of trade and purpose for which asset was held constituted determining factors---Machinery used by manufacturer to produce articles for sale was fixed capital, while machinery purchased by a machinery dealer for resale was circulating capital---Industrial generator imported, installed and retained for generating energy in manufacturing process was a fixed capital asset and not stock-in-trade---Same generator would constitute stock-in-trade where imported or acquired for sale and supply in ordinary course of business. Cited Cases: • Golden Horse Shoe (New) Limited v. Thurgood [1934] 1 KB 548 • Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 89 • John Smith v. Moore [1921] 12 TC 266 (d) Sales Tax Act, 1990----S.8(1)(b)---Plant and machinery treated as stock-in-trade---Attock Cement case---Reconsideration by Larger Bench---Conclusion in Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. that plant and machinery could be construed as stock-in-trade was based upon over-extension of general dictionary meanings and erroneous conflation of industrial apparatus with circulating capital---Treating everything used within factory as stock-in-trade would neutralize statutory authority of Federal Government to restrict input tax adjustment and lead to an absurd result---Courts were required to distinguish between goods held for sale and apparatus used to manufacture goods---Rule laid down in Attock Cement, to extent that plant and machinery constituted stock-in-trade, was declared erroneous in law and on facts. Overruled to the extent stated: • Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, Quetta and others 1999 PTD 1892 (e) Sales Tax Act, 1990----S.8(1)(b)---S.R.O. No.578(I)/98, dated 12.06.1998, Serial No.6, as substituted by S.R.O. No.677(I)/2000, dated 28.09.2000---Input tax on generators and generating sets---Federal Government was empowered to specify goods, acquired otherwise than as stock-in-trade, in respect of which input tax could not be claimed---Generators and generating sets were included among restricted goods, but generators of 250 KVA or above acquired by registered manufacturer for use in manufacture of taxable supplies were expressly excluded from such restriction---Generator of 1150 KVA imported, installed and used by respondent for manufacturing taxable supplies fell within said exception and was not included among goods in respect of which input tax adjustment was prohibited. (f) Sales Tax Act, 1990----Ss.7 & 8(1)(b)---Value Added Tax mechanism---Input tax adjustment---Right to adjust input tax against output tax constituted fundamental substantive mechanism of value-added taxation under Sales Tax Act, 1990---Notification restricting such right was to be construed according to statutory purpose and precise classification of goods---Industrial generator remained plant and machinery and fixed capital, but entitlement to input tax adjustment arose from specific exception created for generators of 250 KVA or above used in manufacture of taxable supplies, and not because such generator constituted stock-in-trade. (g) Sales Tax Act, 1990----S.8(1)(b)---S.R.O. No.677(I)/2000, dated 28.09.2000---Beneficial amendment---Curative and clarificatory notification---Retrospective operation---Amending notification distinguished industrial generators of 250 KVA or above, used in manufacture of taxable supplies, from ordinary generators and removed anomaly contained in earlier notification---Amendment conferred benefit upon importers of industrial generators and was curative and clarificatory in nature---Such notification was to operate retrospectively and its benefit extended to generator imported by respondent before issuance of amendment---Tax authorities and Appellate Tribunal erred in treating amendment as purely prospective. Disposition---Civil appeal partially allowed---Finding in Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. that plant and machinery constituted stock-in-trade declared erroneous in law and on facts---Reliance placed by Peshawar High Court upon said precedent for treating industrial generator as stock-in-trade held misplaced and contrary to law---Orders of Tax Authorities and Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, to extent they treated S.R.O. No.677(I)/2000 as prospective, disapproved---S.R.O. No.677(I)/2000 declared curative and clarificatory and given retrospective effect---Benefit thereof extended to import of 1150 KVA generator made by respondent. Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal), LTU, Islamabad and another v. M/s Syntronics (Ltd.), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Civil Appeal No.1227 of 2014, Supreme Court of Pakistan (Larger Bench), heard on 20.02.2026, approved for reporting.

Summary: 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)----S. 15---Declaration of S. 15 as ultra vires the Constitution---Retrospective or prospective effect---Past and closed transactions---Judgment debtor had availed a finance facility from Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. against mortgage of landed property through Mortgage Mutation No.583 dated 18.07.1995---Without instituting a suit under S. 15, the Bank auctioned the mortgaged property on 12.05.2008, purchased by Sikandar Khan---Judgment debtor filed an objection petition under S. 9 of the Ordinance read with O. XXI, R. 66, C.P.C., and the Bank sought adjustment under S. 15(10)---Vires of S. 15 had been declared ultra vires by a Full Bench of the High Court in Muhammad Umer Rathor v. Federation of Pakistan, affirmed by the Supreme Court in National Bank of Pakistan v. Saf Textile Mills Ltd., with the simultaneous holding that the declaration would not affect past and closed transactions---Held, that once a statutory provision was declared ultra vires it was ordinarily treated as void ab initio, as if it had never existed---Court retained discretion to temper consequences by prospective overruling, limiting effect to future transactions---Notwithstanding such limitation, past and pending transactions might still be examined where rights had not attained finality or stood conclusively adjudicated---Under the statutory scheme then prevailing, a financial institution was empowered to sell mortgaged property through public auction, and the statute treated issuance of a sale certificate and attestation of mutation as sufficient to transfer title even without a registered sale deed, a marked departure from the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with the Registration Act, 1908---In the present case the auction had not culminated in a complete and legally perfected transfer, remaining unfinalized in the absence of a registered conveyance and being under judicial challenge---Declaration of S. 15 as ultra vires therefore assumed full relevance; statutory protection ordinarily attached to auction sales under that provision was no longer available---Upon striking down of S. 15, the statutory foundation of the recovery mechanism ceased to exist and subordinate forums were bound to give effect to the declared constitutional position. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Umer Rathor v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2009 Lah 268 • National Bank of Pakistan and 117 others v. Saf Textile Mills Ltd. and another PLD 2014 SC 283 (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---Registration Act (XVI of 1908)---Auction of mortgaged property---Absence of registered sale deed---Mutation---Possession remaining with judgment debtor---Title of auction purchaser---Held, that mutation entries were primarily fiscal in nature and did not by themselves confer or divest title, which could only be transferred through a duly executed and registered conveyance---Possession had remained with the judgment debtor and had never been taken by the Bank or delivered to the auction purchaser---Although a mutation was effected in favour of the auction purchaser, no registered sale deed was executed---In the absence of a registered conveyance and delivery of possession, the alleged title of the auction purchaser remained legally infirm and unperfected---Transfer of immovable property without a registered conveyance was not valid in law---Auction purchaser did not acquire an enforceable proprietary interest---Tested on the touchstone of general property law, no valid or enforceable title passed to the auction purchaser. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)----Ss. 9 & 15(10)---Objection proceedings before Banking Court---Scope---High Court, keeping in mind the constitutional invalidity of S. 15, had set aside the Banking Court's order which had allowed the Bank's petition under S. 15(10) and dismissed the judgment debtor's objection petition---Held, that the High Court was justified in setting aside the Banking Court's order on multiple grounds: cessation of the statutory foundation of S. 15; invalidity of transfer without registered conveyance; fiscal character of mutation; possession remaining with the judgment debtor indicating that the sale was never fully worked out; and absence of enforceable proprietary interest in the auction purchaser. (d) Execution---Auction purchaser---Restitution---Bona fide purchaser for value---Absence of registered sale deed after S. 15 of the Ordinance declared ultra vires---Held, that Courts in execution proceedings were required to strike a balance between decree-holder and judgment debtor by applying proportionality, and to remain vigilant in safeguarding interests of third parties, particularly a bona fide auction purchaser---Auction purchaser had acquired the property through a Bank/Court auction, paid the sale consideration in full, and a mutation had been effected in his favour, but the transaction suffered from a legal defect owing to absence of a registered sale deed after S. 15 was declared ultra vires---Law sought to harmonise sanctity of property law, protection of bona fide purchasers for value, and prevention of unjust enrichment---Although the auction purchaser might not sustain a valid title in strict law, he could not be left without remedy where he had acted bona fide, without fraud or collusion, and pursuant to a process conducted under colour of lawful authority---Auction purchaser was entitled to restitution of the amount deposited towards the auction purchase, together with mark-up at the prevailing banking rate from the date of deposit until actual payment, to place him, as far as possible, in the position he would have occupied had the transaction not been rendered legally ineffective. Disposition: Civil Appeal No.232-L of 2017 filed by the Bank dismissed; Civil Appeal No.1553 of 2017 filed by the auction purchaser partly allowed to the extent of restitution of the deposited amount with mark-up at the prevailing banking rate from the date of deposit until actual payment. (C.A. Nos.232-L and 1553 of 2017, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard 04.05.2026 at Islamabad; approved for reporting.)

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001----S.15---Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Registration Act, 1908---Sale of mortgaged immovable property by financial institution---Statutory scheme before S.15 was struck down---Section 15 empowered financial institution to sell mortgaged property through public auction without first obtaining a decree and treated sale certificate and attestation of mutation as sufficient to transfer title---Such mechanism constituted departure from general law under which transfer of immovable property of prescribed value required execution and registration of a conveyance. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001----S.15---Provision declared ultra vires Constitution---Legal effect---A statutory provision declared unconstitutional was ordinarily treated as void ab initio, as though it had never validly existed---Court could nevertheless temper consequences through prospective overruling and protect past and closed transactions---Transactions which remained pending, unperfected or under judicial challenge did not acquire immunity merely because they commenced before declaration of invalidity and could still be examined in light of constitutional position. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Umer Rathor v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2009 Lahore 268 • National Bank of Pakistan and 117 others v. Saf Textile Mills Ltd. and another PLD 2014 SC 283 (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001----S.15---Auction sale conducted before provision was declared ultra vires---Past and closed transaction---Test---Auction did not constitute a past and closed transaction where sale remained under judicial challenge, physical possession was never taken by Bank or delivered to auction purchaser and no registered sale deed was executed---Transaction had not attained finality and constitutional invalidity of statutory provision therefore remained fully applicable to pending proceedings. (d) Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Registration Act, 1908---Auction of immovable property---Absence of registered sale deed---Effect upon title---Mutation entered in favour of auction purchaser was fiscal in nature and did not by itself create, confer or extinguish proprietary title---In absence of duly executed and registered conveyance, auction purchaser did not acquire complete or enforceable proprietary interest in immovable property---Sale certificate or revenue mutation could not substitute mandatory registered instrument once statutory foundation permitting such mode had ceased to be legally available. (e) Revenue record---Mutation---Evidentiary and proprietary effect---Mutation entries were maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and neither conferred nor divested title---Transfer of ownership in immovable property had to be perfected through legally recognized conveyance---Mutation in favour of auction purchaser, standing alone, did not establish valid title. (f) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001----S.15---Auction sale---Possession remaining with mortgagor/judgment-debtor---Effect---Bank never assumed physical possession of mortgaged property and possession was never delivered to auction purchaser---Continued possession of judgment-debtor demonstrated that auction transaction had not been fully worked out or perfected---Absence of both registered conveyance and delivery of possession rendered alleged title legally infirm. (g) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001----Ss.9 & 15(10)---Objection proceedings before Banking Court---Judgment-debtor challenged auction while Bank sought adjustment of liability on basis of sale---Banking Court was required to examine whether auction had culminated in lawful and perfected transfer and whether statutory foundation supporting sale remained operative---Where provision authorizing recovery mechanism had been struck down and transfer was incomplete under general property law, objection petition could not be rejected merely because auction and mutation had taken place. (h) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001----S.15---Banking Court and subordinate forums---Effect of constitutional declaration---Once S.15 was declared ultra vires, statutory foundation of impugned recovery mechanism ceased to exist for transactions which had not attained finality---Subordinate forums were bound to give effect to declared constitutional position and could not validate an unperfected auction by continuing to rely upon invalidated provision. (i) Constitution of Pakistan---Execution proceedings---Competing rights of decree-holder, judgment-debtor and third-party auction purchaser---Principle of proportionality---Courts were required to balance enforcement rights of decree-holder with protection of judgment-debtor while remaining vigilant regarding interests of bona fide third-party purchaser---Execution law was not to be applied so as to disregard either sanctity of property law or equities arising from good-faith participation in auction. (j) Contract Act, 1872---Restitution---Bona fide auction purchaser---Auction later rendered legally ineffective---Purchaser had paid full consideration through process conducted under colour of lawful authority and mutation had been entered in his favour, but title failed due to absence of registered sale deed and invalidity of S.15---Although purchaser could not retain property, he could not be left remediless where no fraud or collusion was attributable to him---Restitution was necessary to prevent unjust enrichment and restore purchaser, as nearly as possible, to position occupied before defective transaction. (k) Restitution---Refund of auction price---Mark-up---Bona fide auction purchaser was entitled to return of amount deposited towards purchase together with mark-up at prevailing banking rate from date of deposit until actual payment---Monetary restitution reconciled invalidity of title with equitable protection of innocent purchaser for value. Disposition---Civil Appeal No.232-L of 2017 filed by Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited dismissed---High Court judgment setting aside Banking Court’s order and accepting judgment-debtor’s objections maintained---Civil Appeal No.1553 of 2017 filed by auction purchaser partly allowed---Auction purchaser held not entitled to sustain title but declared entitled to restitution of deposited purchase price together with mark-up at prevailing banking rate from date of deposit until payment. Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. v. Sher Muhammad and another; Sikandar Khan v. Sher Muhammad and another, Civil Appeals Nos.232-L and 1553 of 2017, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard on 04.05.2026, approved for reporting.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Article 199(3) of the Constitution?Armed Forces service matter?Compulsory retirement due to fault of officer?Constitutional petition not maintainable. Retirement order upheld under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954 and Pension Regulations, 2010. Further held that a note or an explanation cannot be equated with the substantive provision to which it is appended; rights and liabilities can only be spelled out from the substantive provision and not from an explanation or note; even an explanation or note cannot be pressed into service to vary or alter scope of the main provision but if there occurs any ambiguity or obscurity in the provision, the legislature may, through a note or explanation, remove or clarify such ambiguity or obscurity.

Summary: The validating amendments to the Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012 (PRA Act), introduced through the Punjab Revenue Authority (Amendment) Act, 2016 which came into force on 06.02.2016 with retrospective effect from 01.07.2012, and the Punjab Revenue Authority (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 dated 06.09.2016, are not only within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature but have also validly and effectively cured the defects identified in the case of "Institute of Architects, Pakistan (Lahore Chapter) V. Province of Punjab and others" (PLD 2016 Lahore 321).

Summary: (a) Sales Tax Act, 1990----Ss.38 & 40---Access and inspection versus search under warrant---Distinction---Section 38 authorized duly empowered Inland Revenue officer to obtain free access to business premises, inspect stocks, records, accounts and data, seek explanations and take relevant material into custody against signed receipt for purposes of inquiry or investigation---Section 40 dealt with a distinct and more intrusive power of compelled search where officer had reason to believe relevant documents or things were kept at a place and prior magisterial warrant was required---Both provisions were complementary and operated independently within separate statutory fields. (b) Sales Tax Act, 1990----Ss.38 & 40---“Free access” and “search”---Legal meaning---Free access meant regulatory entry for examination of material openly available, voluntarily produced or maintained in ordinary course of business---Search involved coercive intrusion directed at discovering concealed or withheld material, including forced entry, opening hidden spaces or repositories and compulsory recovery---Free access was to inspect what was available, while search was to discover what was concealed---Every departmental visit, stock verification or demand for cooperation could not be re-characterized as a search merely because taxpayer found it inconvenient. Cited Case: • Khursheed & Sons v. Federation of Pakistan 2026 PTD 185 (c) Sales Tax Act, 1990----S.38---Physical stock-taking---Lawfulness of inspection---Authorized departmental team visited registered premises for stock verification, where petitioner’s representative informed it in writing that entire stock had already been sold, after which officials departed---No contemporaneous material established forced entry, breaking of locks, opening of concealed compartments, rummaging through private repositories, overpowering of occupants or compulsory recovery of hidden material---Visit therefore remained within scope of lawful inspection under S.38 and did not constitute search requiring warrant under S.40. (d) Sales Tax Act, 1990----S.38---Inspection and taking custody of records---Safeguards---Although S.38 conferred broad powers, it did not authorize forcible production of concealed documents or coercive seizure of property under guise of inspection---Material voluntarily produced or found in plain sight could be examined and taken into custody according to statute, but compelled discovery of hidden material fell within field of S.40---Substance of official action rather than terminology used by either party determined whether exercise was inspection or search. (e) Sales Tax Act, 1990----Ss.25 & 38---Audit and inquiry/inspection---Distinct statutory mechanisms---Section 25 governed formal audit of sales tax affairs of a registered person based upon reasons recorded in writing, notice, communication of reasons, production of records, hearing and possible consequential assessment---Section 38 conferred immediate powers of access, inspection, inquiry and factual verification over a wider class, including registered persons, persons liable to registration and persons connected with suspected tax fraud---Separate headings, triggering conditions, procedures, covered persons and consequences demonstrated that both provisions were independent and parallel enforcement tools. (f) Sales Tax Act, 1990----Ss.25 & 38---Prior audit as prerequisite---No express or implied requirement existed that formal audit under S.25 must precede inquiry or inspection under S.38---Importing such condition would add words omitted by Legislature and amount to judicial legislation---Requiring audit before physical verification could permit stocks to disappear, records to be altered or evidence to be dissipated and would defeat preventive purpose of S.38. (g) Sales Tax Act, 1990----Ss.25 & 38---Nature and temporal operation---Section 25 was primarily document-centric, assessment-oriented and retrospective, examining declared liabilities and past compliance---Section 38 was field-oriented, preventive and immediate, enabling present-time verification of stocks, business activity, records, funding sources and suspicious circumstances---Section 38 created investigative foundation upon which subsequent proceedings could be initiated but was not itself an assessment provision. (h) Sales Tax Act, 1990----Ss.25, 26 & 38---Scrutiny of declarations---Scrutiny distinguished from audit---Scrutiny was preliminary desk-based administrative examination of returns, declarations, profiles and data already filed by taxpayer to identify anomalies, inconsistencies and risk indicators---It was not a formal proceeding and did not necessarily require prior notice---Every audit involved scrutiny, but every scrutiny did not mature into an audit---Department possessed incidental authority to analyze material which statute required taxpayer to file. (i) Sales Tax Act, 1990----Ss.26 & 38---Scrutiny revealing disproportionate inventories---Inquiry and physical verification---Declarations indicated retention of substantial inventories apparently disproportionate to assets and equity reflected in profile and income tax returns---Such anomaly lawfully justified next statutory step of inquiry and physical stock-taking under S.38---Use of word “scrutiny” in notice did not amount to admission that formal audit under S.25 had commenced without notice. (j) Sales Tax Act, 1990----Scrutiny, audit, inquiry, inspection and search---Conceptual distinction---Scrutiny was analytical review of filed data; audit was structured statutory verification under S.25; inquiry was broader fact-finding into suspicious transactions, inventory mismatches or possible tax fraud; inspection was physical or documentary verification of premises, stocks and records; and search was intrusive coercive discovery of concealed material subject to heightened safeguards---Maintaining these distinctions was necessary to preserve separate operation of Ss.25, 38 and 40. (k) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.199---Tax inquiry and show-cause notices---Premature constitutional petition---Writ jurisdiction was extraordinary, supervisory and remedial, ordinarily available where action suffered from patent illegality, jurisdictional excess, mala fide, violation of fundamental rights or substantial breach of due process---It was not intended to arrest every inquiry, verification or interlocutory step merely because taxpayer apprehended an adverse result. (l) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.199---Show-cause notice---No crystallized civil consequence---Impugned notices merely authorized inquiry, sought explanation and afforded hearing before any action under S.21(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990---No final assessment, penalty, cancellation, confiscation or irreversible civil consequence had arisen---Initiation of inquiry was not synonymous with determination of liability and did not by itself furnish cause for constitutional interference. Cited Case: • Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Jahangir Khan Tareen and others 2022 SCMR 92 (m) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.199---Fiscal proceedings---Normal rule of judicial restraint---Tax administration proceeded through scrutiny, inquiry, verification, hearing, determination, assessment and statutory appeal---At show-cause or inquiry stage, taxpayer was ordinarily required to submit reply, produce material and raise jurisdictional as well as factual objections before competent authority---Courts were to refrain from pre-empting statutory process unless notice was wholly without jurisdiction, ex facie mala fide or legally impossible to sustain. Cited Cases: • Messrs Chaudhri Wire Rope Industries Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle-I, Lahore 1988 SCMR 1934 • Ocean Pakistan Ltd. v. Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others 2012 PTD 1374 • Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Faisalabad and others v. Messrs Punjab Beverage Company (Pvt.) Ltd. 2008 SCMR 308 • Messrs Amin Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others 2000 SCMR 201 • Al-Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 29 • Shagufta Begum v. Income-Tax Officer, Circle-XI, Zone-B, Lahore PLD 1989 SC 360 (n) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.199---Mala fide and abuse of authority---Burden---Mala fide was a serious allegation and could not be presumed from mere initiation of tax inquiry or repeat verification exercise---It required credible material showing personal animus, collateral purpose, harassment, retaliation or colourable exercise of power---No such material was produced to justify interdiction of inquiry at threshold. (o) Constitutional jurisdiction---Public revenue and regulatory enforcement---Courts were required to preserve protection against abuse of statutory power while ensuring that constitutional process did not become shield against lawful scrutiny---Revenue authorities were entitled to reasonable operational space to investigate suspicious declarations, possible fake input claims and tax fraud---Supervisory jurisdiction ensured legality of process but did not extinguish lawful process before completion. Disposition---Writ petition dismissed as premature and not maintainable along with pending applications---Petitioner left at liberty to submit reply, produce relevant record and raise all factual and legal objections before respondents---Respondents directed to consider such objections strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by tentative observations in notices---No order as to costs. M/s Maris International (Private) Limited v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-III), CTO and another, Writ Petition No.320 of 2025, Islamabad High Court, heard on 28.04.2026 and announced on 17.06.2026, approved for reporting.