| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1848 2018 SLD 1848 2018 SCMR 1444 (2018) 118 TAX 443 2019 PTCL 10 |
Civil Appeals Nos. 1171, 1179 to 1187, 1190 to 1192, 1198 to 1236, 1242, 1255, 1274 to 1276, 1502 to 1515 of 2017 and 114 of 2013 and Civil Misc. Applications Nos. 6517, 6204, 6207, 6936 to 6940, 8195, 8196, 6723, 6725, 6727, 6729, 6731, 6735, 6747, 6721, 6733, 6737, 6741, 6743, 6745, 8394, 8395, 6739 of 2017, decision Dated: 27-06-2018. Hearing Date : 21-02-2018.
(Applications for impleadment) Abdul Sattar Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants/ Applicants (in C.A.1171/2017). Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rashid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants/Applicants (in C.As.1179 to 1187, 1190, 1192, 1219 to 1235/2017). Makhdoom Ali Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Kassim Mirjat, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants/Applicants (in C.As.1198 to 1218, 1236, 1242, 1255/2017 and C.M.As.6204, 6207, 6936 to 6940, 8195 and 8196/2017). Zaheer-ul-Hassan Minhas, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants/Applicants (in C.As. 1274 to 1276/2017). Dr. Farhat Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants/Applicants (in C.A.114/2013). Dr. Farough Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants/Applicants (in C.As.1502 to 1515/2017). Dr. Farough Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants/Applicants (in C.M.As.6517, 6723, 6725, 6727, 6729, 6731, 6735, 6747, 6721, 6733, 6737, 6741, 6743, 6745, 6735, 6739/2017). Kafil Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court for Collector of Customs Karachi (in all cases). Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Collector of Customs Port Qasim Karachi (in all cases). Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (in C.As.1182, 1186, 1187, 1192 and 1220/2017). Ms. Misbah Gulnar Sharif, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (in C.A.1274 to 1276/2017). M. Sarfraz Metlo, Advocate Supreme Court for FBR. Salman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by M. Asad Lada, Advocate for
Respondents (in C.A.1198/2017). Rehmanullah, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (in C.A.1504/2017). Dr. Raana Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents (in C.A.1192/2017). Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (in C.A.114/2013). Salman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Commission IR (Corporate) Multan.
SEARLE IV SOLUTION (PVT.) LTD. and others
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 80,217(2)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 9
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 80 & 217(2)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9---Suit filed in the (Sindh) High Court in its original civil jurisdiction against an order, notification relating to a taxing statute---Bar to jurisdiction of civil courts under ouster clause in S. 217(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with the limitation to the jurisdiction of civil courts in S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Scope and exception---Appellants, being importers of different raw materials, had claimed exemption of customs duties under certain SRO(s) issued in terms of the Customs Act, 1969, which the relevant authorities/Assessment Officer(s) denied them---Appellants filed a suit before the Single Bench of the (Sindh) High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievance against the adverse orders of the Assessment Officer(s)---Contention of customs department was that such suit was expressly barred under S. 217(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C.)---Contention of appellants that plain reading of S. 217(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 reflected that the jurisdiction of the "civil courts" had been barred for any assessment made, any tax levied, any penalty imposed or collection of any tax made "under the Act"; that the operative term to determine such a bar of jurisdiction was "under this Act"; that the actions of the customs authorities being challenged were unlawful and thus not made "under the Act" and hence the bar of jurisdiction under S. 217(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with S. 9, C.P.C. did not apply---Validity---Perusal of the adverse orders revealed that they were reassessment orders under S. 80 of the Customs Act, 1969---Nature of the power exercised by the authority/Assessment Officer was within its powers to assess, reassess and determine the tax liability of a person, and since the same was in consonance with the spirit of S. 80, it could not be said to be beyond jurisdiction---Adverse orders/actions by the assessment officer could not be said to be beyond jurisdiction and thus failed to circumvent the bar to jurisdiction of civil courts imposed…
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