Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 2372 2023 SLD 2372 2023 SCMR 1980 (2024) 129 TAX 179
Supreme Court of Pakistan
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 24-Q OF 2014 (On appeal from the judgment dated 20.09.2010 passed by the Balochistan High Court, Quetta in Constitutional Petition No.320 of 2010) AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26-Q OF 2018 (On appeal from the judgment dated 15.07.2013 passed by t
Present: Umar Ata Bandial, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar, JJ
Naseebullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in both cases, Video-Link, Quetta). Shakeel-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents (in C.A. 24-Q of 2014). Iftikhar Raza Khan, Advocate Supreme

Haji TOOTI and another---Appellants

VERSUS

FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others---Respondents

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 181,223

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 181 & 223---SRO 574(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 ("SRO 574"), vires of---Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscated goods---Officers of customs to follow Board's orders, etc.---Whether SRO 574 issued by the Federal Board of Revenue in exercise of its powers under section 181 of the Customs Act 1969 ("Act") is ultra vires the proviso to section 223 of the Act---Legislative and administrative orders issued by the Federal Board of Revenue under sections 181 & 223 of the Customs Act 1969---Extent, scope and nature of such orders explained. Per Munib Akhtar, J. (Majority view): The case put forward by the appellants was that SRO 574(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 ("SRO 574") was ultra vires section 223 of the Customs Act, 1969 ('the Act'); that this was so because it unlawfully interfered with the discretion granted by the main part of section 181 of the Act to the concerned officer to "give the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the goods such fine as the officer thinks fit"; that the second proviso made the notification issued by the FBR (i.e., SRO 574) binding thereby wholly depriving the officer of the discretion conferred on him. This, according to the appellants, could not be done by the FBR by reason of section 223 of the Act. The order made by the concerned officer under section 181 is not in exercise of quasi-judicial functions. It is in exercise of a statutory power, and is in the nature of an administrative or executive order. Secondly, if the submissions made by the appellants are accepted that would in effect reduce the second proviso of section 181 to redundancy. This would be so because any exercise of the statutory power thereby conferred would "interfere" with the power conferred on the officer of customs under the main part. The result would be that the power under the second proviso could never be exercised, i.e., would be made redundant. Thirdly, appellants misunderstood section 223. This section is not exclusive to the Act; it is to be found in all fiscal statutes, cast in nearly identical terms. It confers a broad and general power, of an administrative and executive nature,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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