IKHLAQ CLOTH HOUSE VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD
2001 PTD 3121
[Lahore High Court]
Before Mansoor Ahmad, J
Messrs IKHLAQ CLOTH HOUSE, FAISALABAD
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX,
CIRCLE‑12, FAISALABAD ZONE,
FAISALABAD and 3 others
Writ Petitions Nos.8389, 10611, 8004, 8003, 10612, 8683, 8684, 8685, 8389 and 10776 of 2001, heard on 21/06/2001.
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.59‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 2A‑‑‑C.B.R. Circular No.21 of 2000, dated 11‑9‑2000‑‑‑C.B.R. Circular No.26 of 2000, dated 14‑10‑2000‑‑‑Self‑Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 2000‑2001, para. 6‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Selection of cases for audit‑‑‑Selection of such cases through parametric method of selection was violative of para.6 of Self‑Assessment Scheme for the year 2000‑2001 and the same was without lawful authority and of no legal effect and in consequence thereof the notices issued to the assessees were also illegal and of no legal effect‑‑‑Principles.
It is now more than two decades that Self‑Assessment Schemes are prepared and enforced by the Central Board of Revenue. The object behind these schemes is always to prompt and invite all the taxpayers to pay tax voluntarily. Through these schemes and promises the benefit is extended to the honest taxpayers that their tax returns would be accepted on its face value and they would not be subject to bureaucratic harassment. Earlier, these schemes were framed under rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules but to bring them on stronger legal footings, the Income. Tax Ordinance, 1979 was amended by Finance Ordinance, 1980 and section 59 subsection (1) was amended. After the amendment of section 59(1), the scheme was prepared in a much larger scope and it was extended to all assessees provided that they fulfilled certain conditions and did not incur any disqualification laid down therein. After amendment of section 59(1) these schemes were placed at a higher pedestal. These are not mere sub‑legislation but also reflect an offer by the Government in exercise of its sovereign jurisdiction, to the society to which these are addressed and should be implemented in a manner which should not erode the creditability of the State and the Government. The loss of credibility cannot be compensated by a trivial sum of revenue. This jurisprudential principle of modern State with object to have a progressive State cannot be sacrificed at the altar of the expediency of the Government. Therefore, it will be imperative to examine the Self‑Assessment Schemes, its implementation and concomitant relating thereto. Admittedly the scheme was issued, enforced, published and addressed to the body of all taxpayers and citizens of the country. It provided that 20 per cent. of the cases of tax payers would be selected by computer random ballot. Taking plain meaning of the expression it signifies that out of the total returns, 20 percent cases would be selected through computer ballot for audit purpose. The scheme was meant for ordinary citizens of Pakistan. It was not meant for any specialist or students of statistics. The computer random ballot is not defined in the statute so therefore it has to be taken in its ordinary meaning which is commonly known in popular meaning which it conveys. It cannot be left to the discretion of Central Board of Revenue and its hierarchy to devise different modes and methods under the pretext of modern future technology for statistics to evolve a method whereby the common taxpayers and citizens felt entrapped and defrauded. If the Central Board of Revenue wanted to opt for stratified random sampling, it could have been done initially while framing the scheme. Any subsequent device for option of a method which militates commonly understood expression of computer random ballot would tantamount to playing fraud on the statute. It cannot be allowed more so when the credibility of the Government is on the decline and is not showing upward trends. Resolution of the controversy warrants the interpretation of the word "random" as used in paragraph 6 of the Self‑Assessment Scheme. The expression used therein is Computer random ballot. In order to comprehend and appreciate the computer balloting the word random has to be understood. This word has not been defined in the statute or in the scheme. In the absence of definition provided by the statute it has to be taken in its literal meaning.
Random would mean a selection made in a manner which could not be known or predicted with certainty and it is done without a definite plan and patron. Any device or method subsequently evolved to control and monitor the random balloting would tantamount to substitute the random nature of balloting into a planned, and designed balloting. Planned, pre?determined balloting would not be free from trapping and such formula would loose its character of being random in nature. Therefore, introducing parameter balloting under the canopy of random balloting has no sanction of law. It clearly reflects trapping and breach of the trust. Accordingly all parametric selection is violative of the scheme and is without any lawful authority.
There is another weighty reason for the aforesaid decision which is that the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) vide Circular No.4 of 2001, dated 18‑6‑2001 issued a Self‑Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 2000‑2002. In the scheme for next year para. 9 of the Scheme deals with the selection of cases for audit. [p. 3130] B
Para. 9 of the Scheme clearly shows that the C.B.R. was conscious that computer random ballot is different from parametric computer balloting. Thus it leads to the inference that if in the Self‑Assessment Scheme for the year 2000‑2001 the C.B.R. wanted to include parametric computer balloting they could have done the same, as they have done in the subsequent year. Therefore, for the scheme for assessment year 2000‑2001, parametric computer balloting is excluded. It, therefore, could not be brought into through back door. If the parametric computer balloting was omitted in the original scheme then either it was conscious act or it was the result of lack of vision and proficiency on the part of framers of the scheme. Nobody is permitted in law to extract a premium for its lack of vision and proficiency, and smokescreen the same through subsequent device of adoption of a system or clarification which was not part of original scheme. As the hierarchy involved in the framing and implementation of the scheme not only performs the executive function of the sovereign Government but also exercises the legislative function, therefore, any, act, decision or a policy subsequently evolved entailing breach of trust‑would be malice in law and would fall short of fair, just, transparent and proper exercise of the jurisdiction. Thus evolving a method of parametric computer balloting by the Central Board of Revenue is violative of the just, proper and equitable exercise of the jurisdiction and cannot stand the test of the proper exercise of jurisdiction.
Article 2A of the Constitution and promulgation of Shariat Application, 1990 enjoins on the State to deal with issue under Islamic dispensation and Islamic principle of interpretation of statute should be followed. Admittedly Central Board of Revenue, while promulgating Self-?Assessment Scheme for the year 2000‑2001 made a clear representation that cases for selection of audit would be made through random computer ballot. This was the promise given out by the Government to the taxpayers and the citizens. It has a binding effect in law and jurisprudence. It is commanded by the God Almighty through the passages contained in Quran‑e‑Hakeem in Surah Bakara, Surah Al‑Maida and Surah Bani Israel that the promises made to each other should be adhered to. This solemn transcendental principle is to be followed and is not merely decorative. The promise becomes more imperative when it is given out by the Government. Therefore, such promise has a binding force and cannot be allowed to be breached more so by the hierarch, of respondent No. 4. The device or parametric computer balloting, therefore has no place in the Self‑Assessment Scheme under consideration and it is alien to the scheme. It, therefore, follows that the parametric computer balloting is contrary to the law under the said scheme and has to be declared as such.
Besides the doctrine of adherence to the promise as enunciated by Islam judicial system in Pakistan has also evolved doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The principle of promissory estoppel though based on modern jurisprudential trends of various systems of law, is merely a shade of doctrine of adherence to the promise enunciated by Islam. The parametric computer ballot is also violative of principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. It, therefore, cannot countenance the just and fair exercise of jurisdiction and it is accordingly held that it is not only violative of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation but is unjust, unfair and arbitrary and cannot be approved.
The selection of the case through parametric method of selection is violative of para. 6 of Self‑Assessment Scheme for the year 2000‑2001 and the same is without lawful authority and of no legal effect and in consequence thereof the notices issued to the assessees are also illegal and of no legal effect.
(b) Words and phrases‑---‑
‑‑‑‑"Random"‑‑‑Meaning elaborated.
Bellentine's Law Dictionary; B.B.C. English Dictionary; Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Aslam 1986 SCMR 916; Salah‑ud‑Din v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 546; Army Welfare Trust v. Central Board of Revenue 1992 SCMR 1672; Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Central Board of Revenue and another 1996 MLD 980; Muhammad Asghar v. Central Board of Revenue and others 1986 PTD 357 and Statistics in Social Research‑‑An introduction by Robert S. Weiss (Publisher John Wile & Sons, New York, p. 222 ref.
Bellentine's Law Dictionary and B.B.C. English Dictionary ref.
Sirajuddin Khalid for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21 st June, 2001.????????
JUNGMENT
Through this consolidated judgment I propose to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 10611, 8004, 8003, 10612, 8683, 8684, 8685, 8389 and 10776 of 2001.
2. All the writ petitions involve a common question of law and fact. These writ petitions are directed to challenge the parametric random ballot under Self‑Assessment Scheme for the year 2000‑2001 as devised by the respondent No.4 and selection of the cases for audit under paragraph 6 of Self‑Assessment Scheme thro4gh process of parametric balloting. The petitioners are income‑tax assessees in various circles of Income‑tax Department in Faisalabad as well as in Lahore. The respondent No.4 Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.), Islamabad in exercise of the powers vested under section 59 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 issued a Self‑Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 2000‑2001 vide Circular No.21 of 2000. The said scheme was further amended vide Circular No. 26 of 2000, dated 14‑10‑2000. The salient features of Scheme were that if an assessee submit his return by paying ten per cent. more tax on income last declared or assessed whichever was the higher he would be qualified for the self-?assessment under the Scheme. Through an amendment in the scheme whereby sub‑para. (v) of paragraph 2 was substituted and in that it was provided that all cases of persons, not being companies or cases falling in sub‑para. (iii) of paragraph 2 whereby tax payable on the income declared is higher (by 20 per cent.) or more than the tax payable on the income last declared for assessed whichever is the higher would qualify under the Scheme. The Circular No.21 was issued on 11‑9‑2000 and it was amended on 14‑10‑2000 vide Circular No.26.
3. Para. 6 of this Scheme provided for selection of cases for audit. Originally it was provided that from amongst the returns filed under the Self-?Assessment Scheme, returns may be selected for audit in the manner given in sub‑paras. (a) and (b). Sub‑para. (a) contemplated that ten per cent. of the returns would be selected through computer random ballot, and sub‑para. (b) envisaged that cases would be selected by Commissioner of Income Tax with the approval of Regional Commissioner of Income Tax concerned. Through an amendment on 14‑10‑2000 para. 6 was also amended. In sub‑para. (a) instead of the ten per cent. the word "20%" was substituted and in sub‑para. (b) it was added that the C.B.R. may issue guidelines and directions in this behalf.
4. The cases of the petitioners were selected for audit and a notice was issued to them. Aggrieved by selection of their cases for total scrutiny, the petitioners filed the present petitions. The main thrust of the arguments of the petitioners is their cases were not selected for audit according to the computer random ballot instead a mode of parametric ballot was adopted which is violative of the provision of this Scheme.
Notice to the Revenue was issued and Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Legal Adviser of the Income Tax Department appeared. Both the learned counsel have addressed detailed and, lengthy arguments. Though the writ petitions were at limine stage and only a question of law was involved, therefore, full‑fledged arguments were heard at the motion stage and the petitions were taken up as admitted cases.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have argued that it was clearly provided in the scheme that selection of the cases for audit would be through computer random ballot but the respondent No.3 C.B.R in violation of this Scheme adopted a mode of parametric selection as against the random ballot. Adding to the arguments they stated that the Data Processing Centre of the C.B.R. called for from the circles list of the returns qualifying for Self‑Assessment Scheme in RB‑4 Form devised by them. Thereafter, they have made category of classes of returns and proceeded for balloting out of the classes. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners this was a fraud perpetrated on the taxpayers and the assessee. According to them the Scheme did not envisage any parametric selection for audit but it could only be through the computer or random ballot from amongst all the cases. Arguing further the learned counsel added that the Scheme extended solemn promises by the Government and it could not be violated. They added that it was against the Islamic jurisprudential principles. The learned counsel in support of their arguments also referred to the Circular of the C.B.R. issued by the Member, Direct Taxes which was issued as policy guidelines by Muhammad Shafi Malik, Member, Direct Taxes, C.B.R. to the Regional Commissioners of Income Tax. The subject of the Circular is also policy guidelines in total audit cases and monitoring disposal and recovery. Para. 2 of the Circular provided that parametric selection of cases for the assessment year 2000‑2001 is a step in the proper direction. Para. 3 of the Circular further goes to state that the abolition of immunity/whitener scheme in conjunction with parametric selection aiming at identification of cases of suppressed income has shown good results and cases involving substantial potential for revenue stand selected. The circular was reported in Lahore Tax Bar News. It was also reported in the Business Recorder. The learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to passages from Surah Baqra, Surah al‑Maida and Surah Bani Israel in support of the arguments that the promise made should be solemnly adhered to and its breach is reprimanded by Almighty Allah. It was also added by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a promise extended by the Government should be guarded more vigilantly and no functionary of the Government should be allowed to entrap the citizens under the garb of such promises.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue controverted the stand of the petitioner and argued that computer random ballot includes selection of cases through parametric selection. The learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the object of the selection for audit is to ensure transparency, objectivity, impartiality and anonymity. These objectives have not been compromised in the C.B.R.'s selection for audit through ballot which was held in the presence of representatives of Chamber of Commerce, Business and Tax Bars and within the purview of the Scheme. According to him word 'selection' refers to collection of a particular thing from which some can be selected, and in that he referred to the definition of the word 'selection' from the Oxford Reference Dictionary, Encyclopaedia Britannica and New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary. According to the learned counsel in order to pick up a case from a number of cases, it is for the authority selecting the case to adopt any particular method of selection when there is no dispute that the authority has the power to select. It was added by the learned counsel for the Revenue that in the process of selection of cases for total audit the Board has an option for adopting two methods of selection as envisaged in para. 6 of the Scheme but only one selection through computer random ballot was adopted and the other mode of selection of cases by the Commissioner of Income Tax with the approval of the Regional Commissioners of Income Tax was not resorted to. It was done so as to have confidence of the tax paying community. Referring to a judgment of this Court in case titled Muhammad Asghar v. Central Board of Revenue, etc. 1986 PTD 357 the learned counsel for the Revenue referred to a passage from the judgment which is reproduced as under:‑‑‑
"Just as the schemes are not intended as traps for the taxpayers they are also not an invitation to the taxpayer to commit fraud upon the revenue. Therefore, the schemes have of necessity to make provision to guard against these two extremes. As already noticed, the Legislature has left the task of framing and operating the schemes to the Central Board of Revenue in view of the expert knowledge it possesses. That being so, all that has to be seen is whether in selecting, cases or classes of cases the Board has been discriminating between the assessees. In this regard it may at once be stated that the petitioners have not been able to point out how in picking up their cases the Board had exercised its power discriminatory or unfairly."
Adding further the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that computer ballot and random ballot have been used interchangeably in various Self-?Assessment Schemes. The word 'random' has been defined in dictionary as a method in which no conscious choice is made. In statistics it is used as a sampling technique. Random sampling is classified in two categories simple random sampling and stratified random sampling. While arguing he added that stratifying sampling means a process in which universe is divided into groups called strata and simple random samples are drawn from each stratum. He stated that in selection of cases by computer stratified random sampling method, the basis of selection through a formula or criteria adopted is kept secret throughout the world. The revenue in Pakistan followed in the early years when the scheme was introduced, simple random sampling method but with the passage of time as experience was gained and technology advanced the Revenue had to match its method of selection with the contemporary technology in use and in that they opted for computer stratified random sampling method. It was also added by the learned counsel that the C.B.R. random ballot formula has been developed annually .by computer professionals under secret instructions on the basis of parameters like percentage of cases, volume of cases from various zones, income levels, etc. This year also the formula has been devised and developed further to ensure the selection of cases having higher probability of suppression of income and tax evasion. Adding further the learned counsel argued that the scheme contained clear provisions for selection of a particular percentage of cases for total audit. In addition to maximizing revenue collection, such audits are also expected to create a deterrent effect. All returns were fed in the computer and any case could be selected for audit. No taxpayer has any right to challenge his selection for audit under the law after opting to file the return under SAS which entailed selection for a given number for total audit. The learned counsel in support of his arguments made reference to Taxed Book captioned as Statistics in Social Research‑‑‑An Introduction by Robert S. Weiss (Publisher John Wile & Sons) or incorp. New York) at page 222 of the book a passage was referred by the learned counsel which is as under:‑‑
......In some kinds of sampling‑‑‑stratified sampling‑‑‑‑the populating of interest is segmented into smaller populations which may be sampled at different rates. Within the smaller population everyone has a full chance of falling in the sample." (Emphasis, ours)
(ii)??????? Within the total cases having greater revenue potential each case, has the same chance of being selected for audit within the group Random selection has different connotations which include simple random sample, unrestricted random sample, stratified random sample etc. Stratified random sampling can again have a variety of techniques and variation, wherein, the universe of unit of observation is divided into groups called strata and simple random sample are drawn separately from each stratum'. (Page 326, Basis Statistics in Business Economics by William S. Peter, Wards worth Publishing Company, Inc. Belmont, California)."
It was added by the learned counsel that the plea of the taxpayer that balloting should have been random in the sense that it should have been like putting all 'NTN' in a box and extracting some from the box, is misconceived. According to him, random may have scores of shades of meaning, its use in Self‑Assessment Scheme is in a very specific context, the broader objectives of which have been stated. The learned counsel for the Revenue also urged that the petitioner an assessee cannot claim immunity from the total scrutiny under writ jurisdiction.
8. The arguments of both the parties are examined in their intrinsic force and value. It is now more than two decades that Self‑Assessment Schemes are prepared and enforced by the Central Board of Revenue. The object behind these schemes is always to prompt and invite all the taxpayers to pay tax voluntarily. Through these schemes and promises the benefit is extended to the honest tax payers that their tax returns would be accepted on its face value and they would not, be subject to bureaucratic harassment. Earlier these schemes were framed under Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules but to bring them on stronger legal footings the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was amended by Finance Ordinance, 1980 and section 59 subsection (1) was amended. After the amendment of section 59(1) the scheme prepared in a much larger scope and it was extended to all assessees provided that they fulfilled certain conditions and do not incur any disqualification laid down therein. After amendment of section 59(1) these schemes are placed at a higher pedestal. These are not mere sub‑legislation but also reflect an offer by the Government in exercise of its sovereign jurisdiction, to the society to which these are addressed and should be implemented in a manner which should not erode the credibility of the State and the Government. The loss of creditability cannot be compensated by a trivial sum of revenue. This jurisprudential principle of modern State with object to have a progressive State cannot be sacrified at the altar of the expediency of the Government. A Therefore, it will be imperative to examine the Self‑Assessment Schemes, its implementation and concomitant relating thereto. Admittedly the Scheme was issued, enforced, published and addressed to the body of all taxpayers and citizens of the country. It provided that 20 per cent. of the cases of tax payers would be selected by computer random ballot. Taking from its plain meaning of the expression it signifies that out of the total returns, 20 per cent. cases would be selected through computer ballot for audit selection. The Scheme was meant for ordinary citizens of Pakistan. It was not meant for any specialist or students of statistics. The computer random ballot is not defined in the statute so, therefore, it has to be taken in its ordinary meaning with in commonly known as popular meaning which it conveys. It cannot be left to the discretion of respondent No.4 Central Board of Revenue and its hierarchy to devise different modes and methods under the pretext of modern future technology for statistics to evolve a method whereby the common tax payers and citizens felt entrapped and defrauded. If the respondent No.4 wanted to opt for stratified random sampling, it could have been done initially while framing the Scheme. Any subsequent device for option of a method which militate commonly understood expression of computer random ballot would tentamount to playing fraud on the statute. It cannot be allowed more so when the credibility of the Government is on the decline and is not showing upward trends. Resolution of the controversy warrants the interpretation of the word 'random' as used in paragraph 6 of the Self-?Assessment Scheme. The expression used therein is computer random ballot. In order to comprehend and appreciate the computer balloting the word l 'random' has to be understood. This word has not been defined in the statute' or in the Scheme. In the absence of‑definition provided by the statute it has to be taken in its literal meaning. The meaning of the word 'random' in various dictionaries and legal texts are:
(1)??????? Bellentine's Law Dictionary:
"Without any settled aim, purpose or direction left to chance, casual or haphazard."
(2)??????? B.B.C. English Dictionary:
"Something done, in a random way is done without a definite plan or patron. Anything intended, planned design purposeful is not random word and phrases in its popular sense means done at haphazard or without any settled aim. Purpose or direction, left to chance or casual or haphazard. "
Random, therefore, would mean a selection made in a manner which could not be known or predicted with certainty and it is done without .a definite plan and patron any device or method subsequently evolve to control and monitor the random balloting would tentamount to substitute the random nature of balloting into a planned, and design balloting. Planned, pre?determined balloting would not be free from trapping and such formula would loose its character of being random in nature. Therefore, introducing parameter balloting under the canopy of random balloting has no sanction of law. It clearly reflect trapping and breach of the trust. Accordingly alt parametric selection is violative of the Scheme and is held to be without any lawful authority.
9. There is another weighty reason for the aforesaid decision which is that the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) vide Circular No.4 of 2001, dated 18‑6‑2001 issued a Self‑Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 2000‑2002. In the Scheme for next year para. 9 of the Scheme deals with the selection of cases for audit and in that subparagraph 9(a)(i) provides as under:‑‑‑
"9???????? Selection of cases for audit.‑‑‑(a) From amongst the returns filed under the Self‑Assessment Scheme (excluding salary and only property income cases), twenty per cent. (20 %) returns may be selected for total audit in the following manner:‑‑‑
(i)???????? through computer ballot which may be random or parametric, as? deemed fit by the Central Board of Revenue. "
This clearly shows that the C.B.R. was conscious that computer random ballot is different from parametric computer balloting. Thus it leads to the inference that if in the Self‑Assessment Scheme for the year 2000‑2001 the C.B.R. wanted to include parametric computer balloting they could have done the same, as they have done in the subsequent year. Therefore, for the scheme for assessment year 2000‑2001 parametric computer balloting is excluded. It, therefore, could not be brought into through back door. If the parametric computer balloting was omitted in the original scheme then either it was conscious act or it was the result of lack of vision and proficiency on the part of framers of the scheme. Nobody is permitted in law to extract a premium for its lack of vision and proficiency and smokescreen the same through subsequent device of adoption of a system or clarification which was not part of original scheme. As the hierarchy involved in the framing anti implementation of the scheme not only perform the executive function of the sovereign Government but as well they have exercised the legislative function, therefore, any act, decision or a policy subsequently evolved entailing in breach of trust would be malice in law and would fall short of fair, just, transparent and proper exercise of the jurisdiction. Thus, evolving a method of parametric computer balloting by the respondent No.4 is violative of the just, proper and equitable exercise of the jurisdiction anti cannot stand the test of the proper exercise of jurisdiction.
f.0. Article 2A of the Constitution and promulgation of Shariat Application, 1990 enjoins on the State to deal with issue under Islamic dispensation and Islamic principle of interpretation of statute should be followed. Admittedly respondent while promulgating Self‑Assessment Scheme for the year 2000‑2001 made a clear representation that cases for selection of audit would be made through random computer ballot. This was the promise given out by the Government to the taxpayer and the citizens. It has a binding effect in law and jurisprudence. It is commanded by the God Almighty through the passages contained in Qur'an‑e‑Hakeem in Surah Bakara, Surah Al‑Maida and Surah Bani Israel that the promises made to each other should be adhered to. This solemn transcendental principle is to be followed and is not merely decorative. The promise becomes more imperative when it is given out by the Government. Therefore, such promise has a binding force and cannot be allowed to be breach moreso by the hierarchy of respondent No. 4. The device or parametric computer balloting, therefore, has no place in the Self‑Assessment Scheme under consideration and it is alien to the Scheme. It,‑therefore, follows that the parametric computer balloting is contrary to the law under the said Scheme and has to be declared as such.
11. Besides the doctrine of adherence to the promise as enunciated by Islam our judicial system has also evolved doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. Reference for this is made to "Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Aslam 1986 SCMR 916, Salah‑ud‑Lain v Federation of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 546, Army Welfare Trust v. Central Board of Revenue 1992 SCMR 1672 and Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Central Board of Revenue and another 1996 MLD 980. The principle of promissory estoppel though based on modern iurisprudential trends of various systems of law but it is merely a shade of doctrine of adherence to the promise enunciated by Islam. The parametric computer ballot is also violative of principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.. It, therefore, cannot countenance the just and fair exercise of jurisdiction and it is accordingly held that it is not only violative of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation but is unjust, unfair and arbitrary and cannot be approved.
12. In view of the conclusion drawn the selection of the case of the petitioners through parametric method of selection is held to be violative of para. 6 of Self‑Assessment Scheme for the year 2000‑2001 and the same is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and in consequences thereof the notices issued to the petitioners are also held to be illegal and of no legal effect.
M.B.A./1‑57/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.