Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 26A,32(3A),80,83,195,200,202,179(3),179( 4)

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 6,30,36

Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005

Section: 3,14,14A,29

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 148,162,207,228

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-- --Ss.200 & 202--Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 148, 162, 207 & 228--Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss.6, 30 & 36--Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), Ss.3, 14, 14A & 29--Federal Excise Rules, 2005, R. 60--Import of goods--Recovery of short paid amount-- Scope--Contention of importer was that Addl. Collector of Customs had not been appointed as Officer of Inland Revenue under S.29 of Federal Excise Act, 1990, S. 30 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, and S.228 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, therefore, he had no powers to proceed in the matter of Federal Excise, Sales Tax and Income Tax to issue show-cause notice for recovery of short paid duty and taxes-- Department contended that Addl. Collector of Customs was empowered to collect Federal Excise Duty, Sales Tax and Income Tax at import stage under S.3 of Federal Excise Act, 2005, S.6 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S.148 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and could also recover Federal Excise Duty and other taxes under S.202 of Customs Act, 1969--Validity--Legislature, for S.29 of Federal Excise Act, 1990, S.30 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S.207 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, had appointed different organs of the department as Officers of Inland Revenue for exercising powers under the said sections, however, in said sections neither Collectorate of Customs (PaCCS) nor Addl. Collector of Customs / Deputy Director of Post Clearance Audit figured anywhere and as such they were not appointed as Officer of Inland Revenue under said sections, hence, they could not lay hands on any matter falling under the ambit of Ss.14, 14A of Federal Excise Act, 2005, S.36 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S.162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--Reliance of Department on the notification of Ministry of Law and Justice was untenable as the same had no mandate to interpret the provisions of the law or to amend the provisions and it could only give an opinion and it was for the judicial forums to interpret the provision of a statute--Assuming power on the strength of letter of Ministry of Law and Justice was palpably illegal besides fatal for the case--None of the said officials had powers to recover arrears at…