Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 615 2012 SLD 615 2012 PTD 561
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos.1965 to 1970 of 2007, decision dated: 29-10-2009
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JUSTICE
Sajid Zahid Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak Advocate on-Record, for Appellants. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court, for the
Respondents.

PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED

VS

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX AND OTHERS

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 106

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 32 & 106---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Mis-declaration of petroleum products to be duty free provisions and stores under S.106 of Customs Act, 1969---Charging of customs duty etc., from Pakistan Navy on supply of such products by the company---Notice under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 issued to company for having evaded customs duty on such supply---Validity---Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider question whether non-payment of customs duty on such supply was intentional, lawful or same was an innocent act on account of long standing practice whereby oil supply was exempted from payment of customs duty. ORDER TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---This order shall dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.1965 to 1970 of 2007 as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. Through these appeals the Pakistan State Oil Company Limited has challenged the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 20-3-2007 vide which appellant's appeals were dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant was guilty of evading the customs duty; that the notices issued by the respondent-Custom Department for the payment of the taxes in question was valid and that the appellant had been charging "the value of petroleum products inclusive of customs duty etc. from Pakistan Navy and making a wilful declaration that the supplies are duty free provisions and stores as admissible under section 106 of the Customs Act, 1969, falls under the mischief prescribed under subsections (1) and (2) of section 32 of the Customs Act." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned High Court was merely seized of a legal proposition i.e. whether the notices issued to the appellant were time-barred in terms of section 32(2) of the Customs Act and the Court went beyond the context of the cases of which it was seized of in giving findings of fact to the effect that there was a wilful default or that the appellant had been charging taxes from Pakistan Navy. He added that these observations are not supported by any document on record. He lastly submitted that the non-payment of taxes for the period in question (from February 1998 to April,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492