Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑84 of 1967, decided on 2nd February 1968.

S. 66 ‑ Reference to High Court‑Reference application pending decision before High Court- Remedy on same question as raised is reference .application, cannot be sought under Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962).

Muhammad Fazlur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. M. Hanif, Attorney for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

‑By a petition under Article 98 of the Con stitution, Messrs Steel Brothers & Company Limited, Karachi, sought a declaration from the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, to the effect that the assessment proceedings, started by the Income‑tax authorities, against the petitioner- Company, under section 34 of the Income‑tax Act, in respect of the year 1961‑62 and the threatened proceedings for the years 1962‑63 and 1963‑64, were unlawful and of no legal effect. A further declaration was prayed for that the apportionment of the Managing Agency remuneration, payable to the petitioner- Company on a 50 per cent. basis, was reasonable for all these assessment years. A third declaration was also asked to the effect that the undertaking given to the petitioner‑Company by the Central Board of Revenue in the course of negotiations in 1964, to keep the demand for additional tax on the London 50 % of the Attock Oil Company Managing Agency remuneration, in abeyance, for the assessment years 1959‑60 to 1963‑64 inclusive, was legally valid and binding on the respondents and for seeking consequential reliefs flowing from these declarations. This petition was summarily dismissed by the High Court on the ground that a reference to the High Court covering the same law points, had been made by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Income‑tax authorities, as well as on the prayer of the petitioner‑Company, and it was still pending decision. The petitioner‑Company seek special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.

We have heard Mr. Muhammad Fazlur Rehman, in support of the petition. He has attempted to argue before us that the remedy furnished by the reference under section 66 of the Income‑tax Act was not as adequate and speedy a remedy as was available to him under Article 98 of the Constitution and therefore, despite the pendency of the reference under section 66 of the Income‑tax Act to the High Court, the petition under Article 98 of the Constitution should have been entertained and dealt with on the merits. In this connection he has also represented that even the paper‑book relating to the reference had not yet been made ready in the High Court.

We are not convinced that the matter in dispute here will not be adequately determined in the reference pending in the High Court. The principle of law, once settled, would apply to all the assessment years and it is conceded by Mr. Muhammad Fazlur Rehman that in respect of the years mentioned in the reference, the same question of law is being agitated as would apply to the other years. The Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal has, apparently given a decision in favour of the petitioner‑Company in respect of the apportionment of the Managing Agency income, accruing to the petitioner-Company and on some other points. That decision is being challenged in the reference, on behalf of the Department, in the High Court. On some other points going against the petitioners in proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner has been successful in obtaining a reference to the High Court. It would be circumventing the provisions of the Income‑tax Act if parallel proceedings are started, under Article 98 of the Constitution, to deal with the same questions.

We see no ground for grant of special leave to appeal in the circumstances of this case and dismiss the petition.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.