ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has approached the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), seeking enforcement of tax authorities’ powers under the Federal Excise Act, 2005, and the Federal Excise Rules, 2005. The FBR on Monday filed three separate petitions seeking leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court’s judgment dated December 18, 2025. The petitions were filed through advocate Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar under Article 185 of the Constitution. The petitions raise substantial questions regarding the scope of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The departmental authorities, acting upon credible information regarding possible evasion of federal excise duty, obtained search warrants from a court of competent jurisdiction and conducted a search operation against three cigarette manufacturing units at Nowshera Road, Mardan, on 12th December 2025. The search was carried out under the supervision of an Assistant Commissioner, which resulted in the recovery of approximately 2.75 million kilograms of un-manufactured tobacco from five godowns located at Sang-e-Mar Mar on the Swabi-Mardan Road, opposite Samson GLT. The competent officer in view of the un-reconciled and undeclared stock, and the absence of duty-paid documentation, formed a “reason to believe” within the contemplation of Rule 28 A (6) of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005 that the goods were clandestinely stocked and that the GLT machinery and cigarette manufacturing units were being used in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Consequently, the GLT unit, as well as, the cigarette manufacturing premises were sealed in exercise of statutory authority under Rule 28 A (6) read with Sections 26 and 27 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005. The department subsequently issued a show cause notice under Section 24 read with Section 33 of the Act, thereby initiating adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed for the determination of liability and enforcement of excise duty. The respondent companies challenged the regional tax action/ departmental action before the Peshawar High Court by filing different constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution. The High Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the petitions and declared the sealing of the manufacturing units illegal while observing that the revenue authorities could proceed with inquiry and assessment in accordance with law if violations were established. The department contended that the impugned judgment is contrary to the well-settled doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, consistently affirmed by the Supreme Court, including the reported case of 2022 SCMR 92, which holds that constitutional jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked to circumvent the remedies provided under a special fiscal statute. The petition further submits that the High Court interfered at a premature stage of the proceedings, even though only a show-cause notice had been issued and the adjudication process under Section 33 of the Federal Excise Act had not yet culminated in any final determination of liability. The department argues that the issuance of a show cause notice merely initiates adjudicatory proceedings and does not constitute a final adverse order amenable to challenge under Article 199 of the Constitution. The FBR has also challenged the High Court’s treatment of the statutory expression “reason to believe” contained in Rule 28A (6) of the Federal Excise Rules. The petition asserts that the formation of such a belief is to be assessed based on objective material available to the competent officer at the time of action, and not on conclusively established proof that may emerge only after completion of adjudication proceedings. Hafiz Ehsaan submitted that recovery of a large quantity of un-reconciled tobacco stock and the failure to produce duty-paid documents constituted sufficient material to justify regulatory action under the statute. He further argued that the High Court erred in substituting its own subjective satisfaction for the statutory satisfaction of the competent authority, thereby intruding into the domain of administrative discretion. He maintained that the sealing of the GLT unit and the cigarette manufacturing premises under Rule 28A (6) read with Sections 26 and 27 of the Federal Excise Act constitutes a preventive and regulatory measure aimed at safeguarding federal revenue, rather than a punitive action. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026