| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2281 2020 SLD 2281 2020 PTD 1952 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-4867 of 2013, decision Dated: 06-01-2020, Dates of hearing: 20th November and 18-12-2019
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Makhdoom Ali Khan along with Ms. Beenish Jawed and Fahad Khan for Petitioners. Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi, Deputy Attorney General for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Sarfaraz Ali Metlo for
Respondent No.3.
C.P. No. D-4867 of 2013, decision Dated: 06-01-2020, Dates of hearing: 20th November and 18-12-2019
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Makhdoom Ali Khan along with Ms. Beenish Jawed and Fahad Khan for Petitioners. Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi, Deputy Attorney General for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Sarfaraz Ali Metlo for
Respondent No.3.
QASIM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PAKISTAN LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY AND OTHERS
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 14A,14A(1),14A(2)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 73,73(2)(a)
Law: Customs Rules, 2001
Section: 556(a)(iv)
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)- - S.14A [as inserted by Finance Act (XXII of 2013)]- Customs Rules, 2001, R.556(a)(iv)- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 73- Money BIII- Amendment in Customs Act, 1969- Petitioners were owners and operators of container terminals at various ports and they were aggrieved of insertion of S. 14A in Customs Act, 1969, through Money BIII- Validity- Main object of Customs Act, 1969, was to make it expedient to consolidate and amend law relating to levy and collection of customs duties, fee and service charges and to provide for other allied matters- High Court observed that it did not matter that the amending provision had, not itself qualified as one imposing duties and taxes etc.- All other ancIIIary and allied provisions in Customs Act, 1969, were meant to facilitate the officials to carry out their main objective and mandate and that was collection of duties and taxes by applying law- Amendment in question was nothing but to toe and facilitate the main object of statute; it was ancIIIary and incidental to the main object of imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax which they would ultimately perform while performing their duties within the premises of private port/terminal operators to whom licences were issued- Imposition, abolition etc. as mentioned in Art. 73(2)(a) of the Constitution, had not operated in vacuum as it related to fiscal statute which could generate sales tax, income tax, customs duties and thus was revenue generating tool for the government- Amendment in question was in aid to a primary object of the statute and to mobilize and foster the cause of Customs Act, 1969- Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. 2018 PTD 861 and Divisional Superintendent PWR Multan v. Abdul Khaliq 1984 SCMR 1311 ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes- - Meanings of a word- Principle- Each statute carry different mechanics to assign a varying meaning of the same word- Meaning of same word may vary from one legislation to another; it is the statute and the very provision itself that ,determines as to which varying definition would come into play to carry the object of such legislation- In order to…
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