| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2117 2018 SLD 2117 2018 SCMR 1792 2018 PTD 2082 (2019) 119 TAX 217 2019 PTCL 337 |
Civil Appeals Nos. 1475 and 1476 of 2007, decided on 26-02-2018. Date of hearing: 20-09-2017. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 16.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in C.Ps. Nos. D-1965 and D-1966 of 1997)
GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE
Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in both appeals). Muhammad Waqar Rana, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan for the Federation (in both appeals). M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Babar Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No.2 (in both appeals). Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 3-4 (in both appeals).
ALNOOR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED AND ANOTHER
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS
Law: Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)
Section: 3,12A,12A(1)
Law: Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950
Section: 2(h)
(a) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)--- ----S. 12-A---Excise duty, exemption from---Section 12-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 granted power to the Federal Government to grant exemption (from levy of excise duty), including the power to withdraw such exemption---Exemption notification could be regulated by the Federal Government through subsequent notifications. (b) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)--- ----S. 12-A---Excise duty, exemption from---Notification cancelling benefit of exemption obtained under a previous notification---Prospective effect---Although an exemption granted by a notification remained in field but the authority to regulate such exemption was retained by the Government---Such regulation of exemption could only operate prospectively and not retrospectively---Notification which was prospective in operation would not breach a party's vested right of availing incentive of exemption under a previous notification---Notification (taking away the right of exemption) could not apply to past and closed transactions. (c) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Fiscal statute---Generally, tax exemptions were given rigid interpretation against the assertion of tax payers and in favour of the taxing power but at the same time it was also established rule that the burden of taxation should be distributed equally and fairly among the tax payers. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: GULZAR AHMED, J.--- These two appeals are with the leave of this Court. The appellants have Sugar Factories and are engaged in manufacturing of sugar. In terms of section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ("the Act"), under Entry No.02.02, the excise duty on sugar is levied at the rate of Rs.2.15 per K.G. Section 12-A of the Act gives power to the Federal Government to grant exemption on payment of excise duty by notification in the Official Gazette. Through SRO No.555(I)/79 dated 28.06.1979, exemption was granted on manufactured sugar in a factory in a financial year, which exceeds annual production of the preceding five financial years and the rate provided was 68 paisa per K.G. Changes in the exemption kept on taking place through subsequent SROs. By…
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