Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005

Section: 3(1)(d),34A

(a) Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)--- ----S. 3(1)(d) [since substituted by the Finance Act, (I of 2008)]---Levy of excise duty on service originated outside but provided or rendered in Pakistan [prior to amendment in S. 3(1)(d) of Federal Excise Act, 2005 inserted by Finance Act, 2008]---Scope---For purposes of levying and collecting excise duty what was required to be looked into was services provided or rendered in Pakistan---Words "provided or rendered" used in S.3(1)(d) of Federal Excise Act, 2005 (prior to amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2008) would alone be enough to justify levy and collection of excise duty on service originating outside but provided or rendered in Pakistan. (b) Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)--- ----S. 34A---Reference to High Court---Scope---Question of fact cannot be raised in a reference before the High Court---Reference before High Court invariably lies on a question of law. ORDER EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---This petition of leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 25-5-2011 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, whereby tax reference filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that since the matter related to 1-7-2006 to 31-12-2006, it was to be decided according to the law as it then stood and not in the light of the amendment which was inserted vide Finance Act, 2008. The decision of the High Court, the learned counsel maintained, when seen in this background appears to be erroneous on the face of it, therefore, it has to be set at naught. The learned counsel next contended that when the petitioner denied from the very inception of the proceeding its status as a franchisee, levy of duty thereon, in view of the definitions of the words franchise, franchisee and franchiser, is misconceived altogether. 3. As against that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by taking us through the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal contended that where petitioner itself declared in the note forty of the financial statement for the year 2000 that it paid Rs.166,479,000 as technical fee to the Franchiser Messrs Millicom International Cellular S.A., no…

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