ISLAMABAD: Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed an application of a company engaged in the business of manufacturing/ sales of batteries, and its Chairman for quashing an FIR registered against the company and its chairman for alleged involvement/ beneficiary of sales tax fraud.
In this regard, the SHC has issued an order number (961 of 2024) against the chairman of Millat Industrial Products Ltd and the said company.
SHC has referred back the matter to the trial court for finalisation of the case.
SHC dismisses plea of tractor-maker against refund
SHC further observed that no extraordinary circumstances exist and the trial court can take up the matter of the FIR registered against the director as well as the company.
The FIR number 1 of 2022, registered by Directorate of Internal Audit Karachi, has accused the company of committing tax fraud of Rs51,475,556 in which company has made bogus/paper purchases of Rs724,545,985.
According to the order of the SHC, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of High Court for quashing FIR No. 01/2022 dated June 14, 2022 lodged by the Directorate of Internal Audit (Southern Region) Inland Revenue, Karachi for an offence under section 37(A) read with section 37(D) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The 4th interim challan included the company as a beneficiary of the sales tax fraud; whereas the 5th interim challan also implicated the CEO as the Director of the said company.
Since quashment of the FIR is prayed without availing the remedy under section 265-K Cr.P.C., the office has raised an objection to the maintainability of this application.
SHC referred to the order of the Supreme Court where it reiterated the circumstances in which the High Court could exercise inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A Cr.P.C. and held that the remedy there under was not an alternate or a substitute of the express remedy provided before the trial Court by sections 249-A Cr.P.C. or 265-K Cr.P.C.; that where two Courts have coextensive or concurrent jurisdiction, then in ordinary circumstances the rule of propriety demanded that the jurisdiction of the lower Court be invoked first.
In such cases the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should not be exercised as a routine but only in extraordinary circumstances which warrant the exercise of such jurisdiction by bypassing the alternate remedy available.
The counsel for the Applicants submits that quashment is being sought on the ground that the Directorate of Internal Audit (Southern Region) Inland Revenue, Karachi did not have jurisdiction to lodge the FIR; and that in such circumstances it is not necessary that an aggrieved person should first exhaust the remedy before the trial Court.
SHC observed that, “where the remedy under section 265-K Cr.P.C. is available before the trial Court, the High Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A Cr.P.C except in extraordinary circumstances which warrant such an action.
Each case turns on its own facts and whether those facts present extraordinary circumstances that warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, is something that is decided on a case-to-case basis“.
SHC added that the argument that the FIR is without jurisdiction can well be taken before the trial Court under section 265-K Cr.P.C., and therefore does not present extraordinary circumstances that warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A Cr.P.C . Therefore, the application of the company is dismissed.
Earlier the Trial court (Custom Court in Karachi) had also recalled the exemption application of Chairman of the company and directed him to personally appear before the trial court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024