| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 762 2022 SLD 762 2022 SCMR 765 2022 PTD 683 (2022) 126 TAX 241 2022 PTCL 730 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1831 of 2017, decision dated: 24-11-2021,hearing date: 24-11-2021 (Against the judgment dated12.04.2017 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R.No.1209 of 2010)
MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE, QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (through video link from residence) and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.Sohail Mehmood, D.A.G., Barrister Ahmed Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court, Mrs. Kausar Parveen, Advocate Supre
Civil Petition No. 1831 of 2017, decision dated: 24-11-2021,hearing date: 24-11-2021 (Against the judgment dated12.04.2017 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R.No.1209 of 2010)
MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE, QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (through video link from residence) and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.Sohail Mehmood, D.A.G., Barrister Ahmed Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court, Mrs. Kausar Parveen, Advocate Supre
NAUBAHAR BOTTLING COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED AND OTHErsVSFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH REVENUE DIVISION MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHErs
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 2(27),3(2)
Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005
Section: 12(4)
(a) Judgment--- ---Scope---Judgment is an authority only in respect to what it decides, and only with regard to the proposition of law raised, in that case, and therefore point not argued before the Court cannot be considered to have been dealt with by its judgment. Quinn v. Leathern 1901 Appeal Case 495 at 506; Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem 1994 SCMR 2213 and Mst. Muhammadi and others v. Ghulam Nabi 2007 SCMR 765 ref. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ---Ss. 2(27) , 3(2)---Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), S. 12(4)---Aerated water---Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Retail price---Scope---Excise duty in the context of S. 3(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S. 12(4) of Federal Excise Act, 2005, cannot be counted towards retail price---Law does not permit levy of excise duty on the amount of excise duty, yet to be ‘charged’, to be included in the retail price. Question raised in the present case was whether the retail price as described by subsection (27) of section 2 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (STA, 1990), and subsection (4) of section 12 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 (FEA, 2005), respectively, includes the amount of excise duty leviable in terms of section 12 of FEA, 2005. A charge which is yet to be levied and realized on something (in the present case that something being retail price), cannot possibly be included in/or counted towards that very thing. Law does not permit levy of excise duty on the amount of excise duty, yet to be ‘charged’, to be included in the retail price. Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others v. Messrs Lucky Cement and another 2007 PTD 1656 ref. There is yet another practical difficulty, rather an impossibility in the way of including excise duty in the retail price, as in terms of section 3 of FEA, 2005 excise duty is charged on retail price. The same can therefore only be charged after retail price has been finally calculated/determined and has become known. Crystallization of retail price is therefore an essential prerequisite, and serves as a trigger for levying excise duty. Retail price can therefore not include the levy itself and only such duties, charges and taxes which are…
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