| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1369 2016 SLD 1369 (2016) 114 TAX 413 |
Sindh High Court
CP D-3184 of 2014 (and others) decided on 20.04.2016, Dateof hearing: March 10, 16, 17, 22, 25, 30, 31 and April 05,06, 07, 08, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20, 2016
MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE AND ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Yousuf Arif Muhammad Khan, Shaiq Usmani a/w Usman Uadi, Ali Almani, Hyder Ali Khan a/w, Samir ur Rahman Khan, Jam Zeeshan, A had Zubair, Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, Khalid .laved Khan a/w, Muhammad Ahmer, Muhammad Ameen Bandukda, Iqbal Salman Pasha, Naf
CP D-3184 of 2014 (and others) decided on 20.04.2016, Dateof hearing: March 10, 16, 17, 22, 25, 30, 31 and April 05,06, 07, 08, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20, 2016
MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE AND ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Yousuf Arif Muhammad Khan, Shaiq Usmani a/w Usman Uadi, Ali Almani, Hyder Ali Khan a/w, Samir ur Rahman Khan, Jam Zeeshan, A had Zubair, Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, Khalid .laved Khan a/w, Muhammad Ahmer, Muhammad Ameen Bandukda, Iqbal Salman Pasha, Naf
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT FORWARDERS ASSN and othersVSPROVINCE OF SINDII and ors.
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 70,131(2),133,141,142,142(a),142(c),143, 160,199,270AA,270AA(7),366,Fourth Schedule
Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005
Section: PartII oftheFirst Schedule
Law: Sindh Sales Tax on Services Rule, 2011
Section: 32
Law: Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011
Section: 2(47),2(80),PartBoftheSecondSchedule
1. CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973 Art. 142 & 143 - Entry No. 44, 48 & 49 - Sindh sales tax on services Act, 2011 - Addition of "exception" to entry No. 49 - Rendering or providing of services - Imposition of fiscal levy - Competency - Does it lie solely with Federation, which presently levied duty in terms of relevant provisions of Federal Excise Act, 2005 or does it west only in provinces where Fax is levied in terms of their respective statutes being there Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 - Question of - Some of petitioners argued for issue being decided in favour of Federation by Supreme Court reported as Hirjina & Co: Vs. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (1993) 67 TAX 243 (S.C. Pak.) - (1993 SCMR 1342) while others sought to leave provincial statutes sustained. Thus, counsel for petitioners argued for affirmative answer to first or second question with, correspondingly, negative answer to others. On behalf of respondents arguments were converse of what was said for petitioners, but some counsel for respondents submitted that correct resolution lay in third question being answered in affirmative - Validity - (A) Constitution that establishes federal state and regulates both federating units and Federation itself invariable makes provisions for distribution of legislative powers between two liers of state. In sub-continent archetypal distribution was that made in Govt. of India Act, 1935, which sought to set up federal system for British India. In drawing up legislative lists, Imperial Parliament draw on experience with Constitutions set up for dominions of Canada and Australia and preliminary former, being British North America Act, 1867 (known, Since Partition of constitution to Canada, as constitution Act, 1867). Their Section 91 & 92 enumerates in two separate lists exclusive legislative powers of Canadian Parliament and Provinces respectively. The pronouncements of judicial Committee of Privy Counsel in relation to interpretation and application of those lists contained in letter. Subsequently these principles were affirmed, adopted and applied by Supreme Courts of Pakistan and India in relation to post -independence…