I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Petitioner's Claim: Inspection at business premises on -----.25 required Magistrate's warrant under Section 40 (for search/seizure), not just Section 38 (access/inspection); alleged coercion and no prior notice. 

Respondents' Defense: Section 38 authorizes routine verification of records/stocks independently; action based on audit discrepancies (high input tax carry-forward of Rs --------M+). 

Court's Ruling

Sections 38 & 40 are distinct: Section 38 allows non-coercive access/inspection without warrant; Section 40 needs Magistrate for searches.

“Section 38 empowers the authorized officer to access business premises... This power is exercisable even when no adjudicatory or penal proceedings are pending.”

Inspection lawful: Proper authorization from Commissioner; records voluntarily produced; no coercion proven. 

Rejected reliance on prior case (---------); facts differ—no forced retrieval here.

II. DETAILS

A. Reference & Issues

1. Further to KQU -----------, being an important matter, we would inform you about ------------------- (Attachment CS 3408.1) in ensuing paragraph, with emphasis ours in bold & Underline for quick reading.

2. By this petition in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution, the Petitioner challenges the search conducted by the Officer Inland Revenue, RTO ----------- (respondent No.5) at the business premises of the Petitioner u/s 38 of the STA, 1990 on 10.4.25.

B. Learned Counsel for Petitioner Submissions

1 to 3

C. Learned Counsel for Respondents Submissions

-----------------

D. LHC Deliberations

1 to  7

8. LHC Conclusion & Decision

8.1 In view of the above, the proceedings u/s 38 were neither irregular nor excessive. The Commissioner had a proper factual and statutory basis for issuing the authorization; the officers acted strictly within the scope of Section 38; no measure of coercion, seizure, or forced retrieval was adopted; and at no stage were the intrusive mechanisms prescribed u/s 40 invoked. The Petitioner, therefore, fails to demonstrate any infringement of legal rights.

8.2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.

III. FURTHER DETAILS & SERVICES

Should you require any clarification or explanations in respect of the above or otherwise, or require Income Tax, Federal & Provincial Sales Tax or Withholding Tax Statement, Advisory, Return Filing or Review services, please feel free to email Mr Amsal at amsal@kasbati.co with CC to info.kasbati@professional-excellence.com, asif.s.kasbati@professional-excellence.com.

Best regards for Here & Hereafter
Asif S Kasbati (FCA, FCMA & LLB)

Managing Partner

Kasbati & Co (900+ Tax, Levies, Companies, Banking, Finance, Economy, Inflation, etc

Quick Commentary Service Provider and High Level 416+ Tax & Levies Laws Consultants)

Head of Tax & Professional Excellence Services (Symbols of High Quality Practical Tax, Levies & Corporate Training for Beginners to High Levels' Professionals)

PTCL: 92-21-34329108 Mobile: 0334 322 3163 Website: kasbati.co Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/taxexcellence

Google Map link: Tax Excellence  YouTube Channel Tax Excellence