Messrs SYED BHAIS (PVT.) LTD. through Director VS CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD
2007 P T D 239
[Lahore High Court]
Before Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J
Messrs SYED BHAIS (PVT.) LTD. through Director
Versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD through Chairman and another
Writ Petitions Nos. 5471, 5472, 5473, 5398, 5417 and 6331 of 2006, decided on 30/06/2006.
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----S.177---Total audit---Import, object and scope---Conduct of audit into income tax affairs (including examination of accounts and record, inquiry into expenditure, assets and liabilities), is a new concept introduced for the first time in income tax laws in Pakistan which has to be understood in the scheme of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Power to select a case for audit is power, vested with Commissioner, who in relation to income tax affairs of person, having regard to clauses (a) to (d) of S.177 (4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, can select a case for audit---Central Board of Revenue in view of S.177 (1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is also given the authority, in its supervisory capacity to lay down a criteria for selecting any person' for audit through Commissioner---On the basis of such criteria, Commissioner is to select a person for audit, besides the powers vesting in him under S.177 (4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Concept of audit, subsequent to completion of assessment, has been introduced in new enactment, to keep a check on the veracity of declaration made in the return.
(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
---S.122---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.65---Self -assessment---Old and new law---Distinction---New law is enacted with main difference that previously, Assessing Officer used to examine return of assessee and satisfy himself as to its correction before passing an assessment order---Concept of enactment of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is to "let the taxpayer make his own assessment"---Now assessment order is made by operation of law on furnishing of complete return.
(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----S. 177---Selection of a case for total audit---Authority of Commissioner--Scope---Authority of Commissioner to select a person for audit under S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is two-fold, firstly on the guidelines of Central Board of Revenue as envisaged in subsections (1) and (2) and secondly at his own by resorting to provisions of subsection (4) of S.177, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Commissioner, for the purposes of selecting for audit, has to resort to the criteria laid down by Central Board of Revenue, in cases falling under first category---Disclosure of reason that regard having been given to clauses (a) to (d) of S.177 (4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is requirement for the cases falling under second category.
(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
---S. 177 (3)---Selecting a case for total audit---Criteria laid down by Central Board of Revenue---Confidentiality---Object---Previous publication of criteria/guidelines in objective form is not the requirement of law, nor it is justified---Central Board of Revenue, under the provisions of S.177 (3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, has to keep the criteria confidential---Previous publication of criteria/guidelines can be an instrument in the hands of taxpayers, who by knowing beforehand that their cases would not be selected or scrutinized, may take full benefit of the situation---Previous publication of criteria, fore-arms taxpayer to evade tax---Issuance of criteria either before or at the time of announcement of scheme may frustrate the very object of provision of S.177 (3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
(e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
---Art. 189---Income tax---Direction of Supreme Court---Effect---Revenue is bound to follow the arrangement and slightest departure from the observation/direction of Supreme Court cannot be expected.
(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
---Ss.114, 120 & 177---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Self-assessment---Selection of case for total audit---Assesses had self-assessed their income and accordingly filed their tax returns but Authorities selected their cases for total audit--Assessees assailed notices of audit, issued by Authorities on the ground that their income tax returns had become assessment order under the provisions of S.120 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, thus without any criteria laid down by Central Board of Revenue, the cases could not be selected for total audit, on pick and choose policy---Validity---Cases of assessees were selected under S.177 (4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, therefore, Commissioner was to disclose reasons that while selecting cases for audit, due regard was given to the provisions of clauses (a) to (d) of S.177 (4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Selection of cases for audit was open to exception only when selection involved personal bias; mala fide or suffered from unfair treatment---No element of bias or mala fide either existed or had been pleaded by assessees---Taxpayer was legally and morally bound to furnish true declaration of income in his/its return---Taxpayer, while filing return made a declaration under S.114 (2) (b) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to the effect that relevant record along with other particulars was kept, true statement in return had been made and record was maintained as per declaration---No prejudice was caused to a taxpayer on being selected for audit, if he made true statement and maintaining record as per declaration---Grounds on which notices had been assailed were without any force---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked on mere issuance of a notice when no adverse action had been taken---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Muhammad Hussain v. Commissioner Income Tax 2005 PTD 152; Reference No.2 of 2005 by the President of Pakistan PLD 2005 SC 873; Messrs Sahib Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director, Faisalabad v. Federation of Pakistan though Secretary Finance, Secretariat, Islamabad and 4 others 2004 PTD 1; Messrs Fazal Sweets, Lahore v. Secretary Revenue Division Islamabad 2004 PTD 171; Akhlaq Cloth House Faisalabad v. Secretary Revenue Division Islamabad 2003 PTD 1513 and Messrs Decent Rice Corporation, Sheikhupura v. Secretary Revenue Division Islamabad 2005 PTD 1847 ref.
Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khan Khosoo v. Branch Manager, Jhatpat 2000 SCMR 1017; Niaz Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan 2004 MLD 460 and Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. Messrs Media Network and others C.As. Nos. 233 to 315 of 2004 rel.
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Safqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioners.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Shahid Jameel Khan for Respondent-Revenue.
ORDER
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---The order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 5471, 5472, 5473, 5398, 5417 and 6331 of 2006 as common questions of law are involved in these petitions.
2. The petitioner-Company, filed income tax return for the year, 2003 on 31-12-2003 under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as "Ordinance, 2001"). The return of income submitted by the taxpayer, under section 114 of the Ordinance, 2001, became an assessment order under the provisions of section 120 of the Ordinance, 2001. The petitioner received a notice for selection of its case for audit under section 177 of the Ordinance, 2001, which was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition No.2807 of 2005. This Court declared the notice under section 177(1), without lawful authority and Commissioner was given the choice to issue fresh notice after meeting the parameters laid down in the case of Muhammad Hussain v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2005 PTD 152). The respondent-Revenue approached the Apex Court through various civil petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of this Court, whereby the selection for audit under section 177 of the Ordinance, 2001 was set at naught. The civil petitions were converted into appeals and the parties before the august Supreme Court reached to an arrangement for the disposal of the appeals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeals on the basis of the arrangement between the Revenue and the respondents in those appeals, resultantly certain portions of the impugned judgment i.e. last part of para. 7, paras. 8 and 12 of the impugned judgment Muhammad Hussain (Supra) were expunged and the respondent-Revenue was directed to issue fresh notice in terms of section 177 of the Ordinance, 2001, disclosing the criteria/reasons for selecting the cases for the purpose of audit. Thereafter the respondent/Revenue issued the impugned notice, dated 25-4-2005 under section 177(4)(d) of Ordinance, 2001. The petitioner has challenged this notice through the instant constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Ordinance, 2001, imposes responsibility of filing true and correct return on the taxpayer and provides for objective accountability criteria. In case audit lead to any adverse discovery, the return is then to be modified. There is no concept of picking up the case for audit at random and no such authority vests either with the Commissioner or with the C.B.R. While referring to section 177 of the Ordinance, 2001, learned counsel has submitted that C.B.R. has the authority to lay down criteria for selection of any person for audit through the Commissioner and the Commissioner has the powers under subsection (2) of section 177 for selecting a person for audit on the basis of criteria laid down by the C.B.R. Learned counsel went on to argue that for selection of a case for audit there are various steps. The first step of the Revenue is to objectively lay the criteria instead of picking and choosing the cases at random. Law requires certain guidelines and criteria to the said objective selection of cases. After laying down criteria for selection the cases falling on the basis of that criteria of audit, are to be selected and notice thereof is required under law to be issued. The case, which is selected for audit is required in terms of section 177(5) for conducting of an audit into the income tax affairs of the taxpayer, whereby his accounts and record is to be examined; inquiry into the expenses; assets and liability, is to be made. Learned counsel has added that the final step is under section 177(6), which relates to amendment in the assessment under section 122(4) of the Ordinance, 2001.
4. Learned counsel has emphasized that the respondents have started examination of the record without first laying down a criteria for audit. Learned counsel while referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the Reference No.2 of 2005 by the President of Pakistan (PLD 2005 SC 873) has submitted that according to enunciation of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that un guided powers are not vested with an authority, the authority has to remain within the parameters of law and excessive delegation of jurisdiction, denying the right to access to justice to the citizens is ultra vires the Constitution. Learned counsel further submitted that without adhering to parameters of clauses (a) to (d) of section 177 of the Ordinance, 2001 the respondents have issued the impugned notice which was not covered under clauses (a) to (d) of section 177 of Ordinance ibid. The case of Messrs Sahib Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director, Faisalabad v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Secretariat Islamabad and 4 others (2004 PTD 1) was referred to contend that while considering the self-assessment scheme, a parallel provision in section 59 of repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as "repealed Ordinance"), this Court has disapproved the selection on the basis of guidelines of picking and choosing the cases on random basis. Learned counsel has referred to the case of Messrs Fazal Sweets, Lahore v. Secretary Revenue Division Islamabad (2004 PTD 171), Akhlaq Cloth House Faisalabad v. Secretary Revenue Division Islamabad (2003 PTD 1513) and Messrs Decent Rice Corporation, Sheikhupura v. Secretary Revenue Division Islamabad (2005 PTD 1847), to contend that there must be a guideline for selection of cases for audit under section 177 of Ordinance, 2001. The criteria can be objective only that is to say it is to be announced in advance and before the returns are put through process of audit. The same cannot be announced in midstream. A criteria, which is unannounced and secret can always be modified/changed. Parameters for selection are to be set before a case is selected for audit. Picking and choosing a case without a criteria, amounts to unbridle and unguided powers in the hands of Assessing Officer. It will result into arming the taxation officer with unchecked powers who can discriminately exercise the same. Selecting one taxpayer among thousands is discriminatory. Learned counsel has further submitted that para. 12 has been expunged from the judgment in the case of Ch. Muhammad Hussain (Supra). It was contended that as per the observation of the Apex Court, fresh notices, in terms of section 177, are to be served upon respondents, by disclosing therein the criteria and reason for selecting the case for purpose of audit. The respondent has to disclose criteria before issuing notice under section 177 of Ordinance, 2001. The impugned notice, without disclosing criteria, is non-compliance of direction of the Hon'ble Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand defended the impugned notice by submitting that notice was issued to the petitioner, stating therein the reasons for selection. He brought attention of this Court to clause (i) of the impugned notice whereby it was conveyed to petitioner that Gross Profit (G.P.) was assessed at 21.18% in the preceding year but the same was declared at 17.6% in current year. Sudden decrease needed probe for ascertaining reason for downfall. It was well-reasoned notice in terms of section 177, for selecting the case for audit. Disclosure of above reason in the impugned notice is sufficient compliance of the directions of the Apex Court. Learned counsel has submitted that the return of income filed by the taxpayer becomes an assessment order, on the day when it is furnished as envisaged in section 120(i) (b) of Ordinance, 2001. A taxpayer is conscious of the fact that a formal order is not required to be passed, nor any scrutiny is liable to be made at the stage of filing of returns. Taxpayer is under legal and moral obligation to file true and correct return of income. The selection of case for audit is only a check in this respect and notice under section 177 in the first step and after completion of audit, Commissioner if considers it necessary can amend assessment. The amendment can only be made after issuing notice under section 122 of the Ordinance, 2001 wherein explanation of the taxpayer is obtained, on all issues discovered in the course of audit. The amendment is legally permissible only when the case of the taxpayer falls within the contemplation of subsections (5) and (5A) of the section 122. A tax payer has full opportunity to defend the objections raised. Mr. Shahid Jamil Khan, Advocate, who represents Income Tax Department in Writ Petitions Nos.5417 of 2006 and 6331 of 2006 has made his submissions in addition to what Mr. Ilyas Khan Advocate has contended. Learned counsel has submitted that notice for audit is the initial step where taxpayer is asked to justify the returns of income and through test of audit prove the truth and the genuineness of declarations made in the returns. By selecting a case for audit, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioners. He added that after expungement of the paras. 8 and 12 of judgment in the case of Muhammad Hussain (supra), the issue stands resolved that selection for audit is neither prejudicial to the interest of taxpayer, nor the same is adverse to his interest. Such action cannot be challenged through constitutional petition. The writs challenging the issuance of notice, are not maintainable and in this respect referred the cases of Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khan Khosoo v. Branch Manager, Jhatpat (2000 SCMR 1017) and Niaz Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan (2004 MLD 460). Learned counsel while referring to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. Messrs Media Network and others (Civil Appeals Nos. 233 to 315 of 2004), has contended that selection of case, either through computer ballot or at random without specifying criteria before filing of return, has been held by the Apex Court as unexceptionable and an objection in this respect is not legally tenable.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
9. Conduct of audit into the income tax affairs (including examination of account and record, enquiry into expenditure, assets and liabilities), is new concept introduced for the first time, in income tax laws in Pakistan. It has to be understood in the scheme of Ordinance, 2001. The power to select a case for audit was power, vested with the Commissioner, who in relation to income tax affairs of person, having regard to clauses (a) to (d) of section 177(4) of Ordinance, 2001, could select a case for audit. Section 177 was substituted through Finance Act, 2004 and subsection, (1) was added, in view whereof, Central Board of Revenue was also given the authority, in its supervisory capacity, to lay down a criteria for selecting any person for audit through the Commissioner and the Commissioner, on the basis of that criteria, is to select a person for audit, besides the powers vesting in him under subsection (4) of section 177.
10. An assessee under repealed Ordinance, 1979, was to file return of total income under section 55. The Assessing Officer had the power, under section 59(A), to accept a return, after satisfying himself that return of income is correct. In case Assessing Officer was not satisfied, a notice/action under sections 61 and 62 was the consequence, whereby an assessee was asked to produce evidence in support of the declarations made in the return. Assessing Officer in pursuance of action in terms of sections 61 and 62, was required to specify the defects and confront the assessee with it. The Assessing Officer was to proceed in the matter as quasi judicial authority and in that capacity was to receive evidence from the assessee. If the evidence produced by the assessee was found defective/inadmissible, the Assessing Officer was required, under section 62, to pass an assessment order, wherein the declared income/result is rejected and the income of assessee is computed in accordance with law through a speaking order. Law had provided the remedy of appeal against the assessment order before Commissioner (Appeals) and second appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Besides the remedy of appeal against the assessment order, the assessment could be reopened either under section 65 (on definite information regarding concealment or in accurate furnishing of particulars which resulted into escape assessment or assessment at too low rate or under assessment or excessive relief) or under section 66-A (where Inspecting Additional Commissioner could revise order by cancelling, amending or evaluating or modifying the assessment or directing fresh assessment), where order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
11. In departure from the above explained assessment under the normal provision of the Ordinance of 1979, the Self-Assessment Scheme, under section 59, was also formulated/issued by C.B.R., which normally used to be conditional and only the person whose return qualified under the scheme could claim acceptance of his declared version. The declared version was subject to preliminary/brief scrutiny, as provided under the scheme and under section 59(1). Whereafter, either order under section 59(1) was passed or deemed order used to take place under section 59(4). The rationale behind the scheme was to facilitate those assessees, who had clean record, were not involved in litigation and were gradually increasing their income. Some percentage of the qualified returns used to be selected for assessment (under sections 62 or 63) as authorised under section 59(1A). Central Board of Revenue, was to announce Scheme of Self-Assessment for each year.
12. Return under the new Ordinance (Ordinance XLIX of 2001) is furnished under section 114, which on furnishing complete return, constitutes an assessment within the contemplation of section 120. In the event of filing an incomplete return, the taxpayer is asked by Taxation Officer, to make up such deficiency within stipulated period (not beyond one month). The return again constitutes an assessment order, on making up the deficiency. Non-compliance of notice regarding making up the deficiency, results into the ex parte assessment under section 121. The assessee in the earlier enactment could revise his/it's return only prior to the completion of assessment, but under the new Ordinance it can be revised even after the completion of assessment and as many times as the taxpayer considers appropriate. The taxpayer in this respect has to meet the condition that an error or omission was found in earlier return. Provisions of sections 65 and 66 of the repealed Ordinance (Ordinance 1979) have been gathered in section 122 of the new Ordinance. Section 65 of late Ordinance, corresponds with section 122(5). Complete assessment can be reopened under the provision of both the enactments on the basis of having possession of definite information, the only difference is that an approval of I.A.C. for reopening the case was an essential requirement but condition of approval has been done away, under the new Ordinance. A superior authority under the new Ordinance, can amend the assessment, in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue (this provision of law corresponds with section 66-A of late Ordinance), such action cannot be invoked by Taxation Officer below the rank of Additional Commissioner. The concept of audit, subsequent to completion of assessment, has been introduced, in the new enactment, to keep a check on the veracity of the declaration made in the return.
13. New law is enacted with main difference that previously, the Assessing Officer used to examine return of assessee and satisfy himself as to its correction before passing an assessment order. The concept of enactment of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is to let the taxpayer make his/its own assessment'. Now the assessment order is made by operation of law on furnishing of the complete return. Government/Revenue reserves its right, against the above concession, to look into the affairs of the income of the taxpayer by resorting to the newly introduced concept of audit. The exercise of seeing the correctness of return is undertaken by selecting a person for audit under section 177. Selection of cases for audit, is to keep check on taxpayer for filing true and correct returns. Section 177 comprises of two parts, each conferring upon the Commissioner i.e. authority to select a person for audit. The Commissioner selects a person for audit either on the basis of criteria laid down by the Central Board of Revenue or by resorting to sub-clause (4) of section 177. While resorting to latter course regard to clauses (a) to (d) is an essential requirement. The impugned notices selecting the petitioners for audit fall under the latter category i.e. under section 177(4). The authority of Commissioner to select a person for audit, under section 177 is two fold, firstly on the guidelines of C.B.R. as envisaged in subsections (1) and (2) and secondly at his own by resorting to provisions of subsection (4). The Commissioner for the purpose of selecting for audit has to resort to the criteria laid down by C.B.R. in the cases falling under first category. Disclosure of reason that the regard having been given to clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (4), is requirement for the cases falling under second category. The affairs of income of the petitioner fall in the second category, therefore, at the time of selection of audit, only the disclosure of reason was the requirement of law.
14. Now I will revert to objection of the petitioner as to the selection for audit, without laying down objective criteria before filing of returns. As mentioned in the preceding para that section 177 comprises of two parts and authority of Commissioner to select a case, is separate under each part. In case the C.B.R. has laid down a criteria, then the Commissioner is bound to select the case of that person on the basis of the criteria. Previous publication of criteria/guidelines in the objective form is not the requirement of law, nor it is justified. Firstly, for the reason that according to provisions of section 177(3) of the Ordinance, 2001 C.B.R. has to keep the criteria confidential. Secondly, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Messrs Media Network (Supra) previous publications of criteria/guidelines will be instrument in hands of taxpayers, who by knowing before hand that their cases will not be selected or scrutinized, will take full benefit of the situation. Previous publication of criteria, will fore arm the taxpayer to evade tax. Issuance of criteria either before or at the time of announcement of scheme would frustrate the very object of provision of section 177(3). Revenue and various respondents, entered into arrangement before the Apex Court (in Appeals Nos. 1962 to 2205 of 2005) whereby the appeals were disposed of by consent as a result thereof, Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed that fresh notices in terms of section 177 of Ordinance, 2001 be issued, disclosing criteria/reasons for selection their cases for the purpose of audit. Revenue is bound to follow the arrangement and slightest departure from the observation/direction of the Apex Court cannot be expected. The question whether the impugned notice, in any manner, negates the said arrangement, as the notices were served without laying down a criteria, the answer is obviously a big "No". Disclosure of criteria was only relevant when the cases were selected for audit on the basis of criteria laid down by C.B.R. in terms of section 177(1) and (2). Since the cases of the petitioners were selected under section 177(4), therefore, the Commissioner was to disclose reasons that G while selecting the cases for audit, due regard was given to the provisions of section 177(4)(a) to (d). The judgment of the Hon'ble Court (in Civil Appeals Nos. 1962 to 2205 of 2005) requires from the Revenue the disclosure criteria/reasons in the notice. The examination of impugned notices, challenged through these petitions, reveal that reasons for selection were duly conveyed, which are:
| Writ Petition No.5471 of 2006 | Decrease in gross profit from 21.18% to 17.6% |
| Writ Petition No.5398 of 2006 | Decrease in gross profit from 14.64% to 12.49% |
| Writ Petition No. 5473 of 2006 | Decrease in gross profit from 20% to 16.34% |
| Writ Petition No. 5417 of 2006 | Receivables/debts were written-off, it was to examine that receivable were irrecoverable. Secondly interest on Rapco was merged in sale of investment examina tion. |
| Writ Petition No.6331 of 2006 | Gain on shares, interest on share merged in profit on sale of investment. |
| Writ Petition No.5472 of 2006 | Wrongly allocating the profits from local businessto presumptive tax regime. |
15. The above reasons, disclosed in the impugned notices, sufficiently meet the requirement of section 177(4)(d). The cases of the petitioners are not selected for audit under section 177(1) and (2), therefore, disclosing criteria in the impugned notices is not relevant. The issuance of notice for selecting the case of the petitioners for audit does not infringe the arrangement arrived at between the Revenue and various taxpayers. The notices comply with the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
16. Coming to the objection of petitioners that selecting a person for audit, would unduly put the petitioners to the vigours of audit and process of audit without any benefit to Revenue, will unfairly cause hardship. Further the objections that selection of a case for audit without laying an objective criteria, is discriminatory and capable of arbitrary application, for the reason that it confers unbridled power on Commissioner to pick and choose, was thoroughly examined by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Messrs Media Network case (Civil Appeals Nos. 233
to 315 of 2004). The Apex Court has held, these objections, not tenable. The selection of case for audit, in view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is open to exception only when selection involves personal bias; mala fide or suffers from unfair treatment. No element of bias or mala fide either exists or has been pleaded by the petitioners. Additionally, the taxpayer is legally and morally bound to furnish true declaration of income in his/its return. The taxpayer, while filing the return makes a declaration under section 114(2)(b) to the effect that relevant record along with other particulars is kept. A true statement in the return has been made and the record is maintained as per declaration. No prejudice is caused to a taxpayer on being selected for H audit, if he makes true statement and maintaining record as per declaration.
17. The above discussion brings me to the conclusion that the grounds on which the notices have been assailed are without any force and have not persuaded me to issue writ of the kind prayed for. Additionally the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked on mere issuance of a notice when a adverse action has been taken. In this behalf, I am fortified by the dictum laid down in the ease Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khan Khosoo v. Branch Manager, NBP, Jhatpat (Dera Allah Yar) Branch and 3 others (2000 SCMR 1017).
18. For what has been discussed above, the petitions are without any substance or force and are accordingly dismissed.
M.H./S-186/LPetitions dismissed.