IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CJ  
MR. JUSTICE ATHAR MINALLAH 
 
C.P.3282-L, 3401-L TO 3403-L, 3449-L, 3450-L, 3504-L TO 
3516-L, 3535-L TO 3537-L, 3521-L, 3534-L, 3538-L, 3573-L 
OF 2022 AND 9-L OF 2023 
 
1. 
C.P.3282-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
29.09.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
58672/2022) 
The 
Commissioner 
Inland 
Revenue, 
Lahore 
v. 
Service 
Industries Limited, Lahore, etc 
2. 
C.P.3401-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
29.09.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
59133/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Highnoon Laboratories 
Limited, Lahore, etc 
3 
C.P.3402-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
29.09.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
59245/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore 
v. 
Ibrahim 
Holding 
(Private) Limited, Lahore, etc 
4 
C.P.3403-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
29.09.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
59251/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Ibrahim Fibers Limited, 
Lahore, etc 
5 
C.P.3449-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
28.09.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
56758/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Lotte Akhtar Beverages 
(Private) Limited, Lahore, etc 
6 
C.P.3450-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
28.09.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
58689/2022) 
Chief 
Commissioner 
Inland 
Revenue, Lahore v. Total Parco 
Pakistan Limited, Lahore, etc 
7 
C.P.3504-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
31.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
67867/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Bata Pakistan Limited, 
Lahore, etc 
8 
C.P.3505-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
28.11.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
75186/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. CHT Pakistan (Pvt) 
Limited, etc 
9 
C.P.3506-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
05.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
59911/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Tetra Pak Pakistan 
Limited, etc 
10 
C.P.3507-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
18.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
64130/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. AKZO Nobel Pakistan 
Limited, Lahore, etc 
C.P.3282-L/22 etc 
2
11 
C.P.3508-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
31.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
67781/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore 
v. 
M/s 
Tandlianwala 
Sugar Mills Limited, etc 
12 
C.P.3509-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
27.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
66883/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
(Enforcement), Lahore v. M/s. 
Platform Turizm Tasimacilik Gida 
Insaat Temizlik Hizmetleri Sanayi 
Ve Ricaret A.S, etc 
13 
C.P.3510-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
04.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
60340/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Coca Cola Beverages 
Pakistan Limited, etc 
14 
C.P.3511-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
02.11.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
68017/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore 
v. 
Daewoo 
Pakistan 
Express Bus Service Limited, etc 
15 
C.P.3512-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
18.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
64237/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore 
v. 
M/s 
Chiesi 
Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd, Lahore, 
etc 
16 
C.P.3513-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
04.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
60348/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. M/s Nimir Chemicals 
Pakistan Ltd, etc 
17 
C.P.3514-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
01.11.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
67979/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Cheikhoo Sugar Mills 
Limited, etc 
18 
C.P.3515-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
02.11.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
68023/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore 
v. 
Daewoo 
Pakistan 
Express Bus Service Limited, etc 
19 
C.P.3516-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
28.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
67221/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Packages Real Estate 
(Private) Limited, etc 
20 
C.P.3535-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
27.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
66947/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Ashraf Sugar Mills (Pvt) 
Limited, etc 
21 
C.P.3536-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
28.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
66898/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore 
v. 
M/s 
Corteva 
Agriscience 
Pakistan 
(Pvt) 
Limited, etc 
22 
C.P.3537-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
04.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
60425/2022) 
Chief 
Commissioner 
Inland 
Revenue, 
Lahore 
v. 
Almoiz 
Industries Limited, etc 
23 
C.P.3521-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. M/s Shahtaj Sugar 
C.P.3282-L/22 etc 
3
31.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
67937/2022) 
Mills Ltd, etc 
24 
C.P.3534-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
27.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
67096/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Mobiserve Pakistan 
(Pvt) Limited, Islamabad, etc 
25 
C.P.3538-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
31.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
68129/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. Fatima Sugar Mills 
Limited, Lahore-Cantt, etc 
26 
C.P.3573-L/2022 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
25.10.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
66055/2022) 
Commissioner Inland Revenue, 
Lahore v. M/s Etihad Sugar Mills 
Limited, Lahore, etc 
27 
C.P.9-L/2023 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
29.09.2022 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in WP No. 
58683/2022) 
The 
Commissioner 
Inland 
Revenue, Lahore v. Service Global 
Footwear Limited, Lahore, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: Mrs. Asma Hamid, ASC 
Mr. Aamir Yasir, DC 
Mr. Badshah Chief Commissioner video 
link from Lahore  
 
  
For the Respondent(s) 
: Mr. Salman Akram Raja, ASC in CP 
No.3282-L, 3449-L, 3516-L) 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
Mr. Shazib Masud, ASC video link from 
Lahore in C.P.3401-L/2022 
Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan, ASC video 
link from Lahore  in CP No.3402-L, 
3403-L, 3450-L, 3506-L) 
Mr. Shahbaz Butt, ASC video link from 
Lahore in CP No.3405-L, 3511-L, 3514-
L, 3515-L) 
Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Rashid, ASC in 
CP No.3510-L 
Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, ASC video 
link from Lahore in CP No.3534-L 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 06.02.2023 
 
  
O R D E R 
 
 
 
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CJ: These petitions are filed 
against interim orders passed in different writ petitions by a 
learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby recovery of 
tax levied under Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 
(“Ordinance”) 
from 
the 
respondents-companies 
has 
been 
C.P.3282-L/22 etc 
4
restrained against the security of post-dated cheques. Our order 
dated 02.02.2023 summarises the petitioner’s challenge to the 
impugned interim orders in the following terms: 
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 
recovery of tax under Section 4C of the Income Tax 
Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance") has been challenged by 
the respondents through writ petitions filed before the 
High Court. The High Court has passed interim orders 
restraining recovery of the tax against the security of 
the post-dated cheques. She submits that in the first 
place the respondents have not challenged the vires of 
Section 4C ibid. For bypassing statutory remedies and 
failing jurisdictional tests for maintainability, these 
petitions cannot proceed before the High Court. In case 
the petitioner's challenge is construed to be an attack on 
the vires of the law, the impugned stay order by the 
High Court is without jurisdiction for suspending a 
statute as laid down by this Court in Federation of 
Pakistan Vs. Aitzaz Ahsan and another (PLD 1989 
SC 61). In any event, a crucial aspect for the grant of 
interim relief, namely, balance of convenience ought to 
have been examined by the learned High Court but that 
factor has been completely overlooked whilst granting 
the interim relief on terms that have choked crucial 
revenue for the Exchequer. 
2. We note that the impugned orders dated 28.9.2022 
and 29.9.2022 do not consider the points raised before 
us. Also that post-dated cheques are mere solace; 
providing neither 
tangible security 
nor adequate 
comfort. We would like to examine the points urged by 
the learned counsel for the petitioner.” 
 
2. 
 
Today, we have heard the learned counsel for the 
parties. A consensus has emerged among the parties that the 
controversy regarding the matter should in the first place be 
C.P.3282-L/22 etc 
5
decided finally by the High Court. With respect to the grant of 
interim relief, there is also consensus that the challenge made by 
the respondents is to the vires of law and that the operation of 
Subsection 3 & 4 of Section 4C of the Ordinance have virtually 
been suspended on account of the impugned interim orders that 
are presently assailed before us. It is also plain that whilst 
considering the grant of interim relief, the High Court has failed to 
advert its mind to the crucial factor of the balance of convenience. 
In view of the above, the respondents have consented to deposit 
under protest with the tax authorities 50% of the liability claimed 
against them under the impugned provisions of Ordinance. 
However, the amount of such deposit shall be reduced by the 
amount of any refund that has been determined by the tax 
authorities in favour of the respondents. Needful to be done within 
one week from the date of this order.   
 
2. 
 
With the foregoing observations, these matters are 
disposed of. 
  
 
 
 
Chief Justice   
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
06.02.2023 
Rashid/*  
 
Not approved for reporting