| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 3181 2024 SLD 3181 = 2024 PTD 1049 = (2026) 133 TAX 220 |
Islamabad High Court
Customs Reference No. 11 of 2012, decided on 5th March,2024.
BEFORE BABAR SATTAR AND SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, JJ
Nouman Ameen Farooqi for Applicant.Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for
Respondent No.1
Customs Reference No. 11 of 2012, decided on 5th March,2024.
BEFORE BABAR SATTAR AND SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, JJ
Nouman Ameen Farooqi for Applicant.Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for
Respondent No.1
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH ADDITIONAL DIRECTORVSMESSRS KHYBER TEA AND FOOD COMPANY IMPORTERS, EXPORTERS AND GENERAL ORDER SUPPLIERS KATCHERY GATE, PESHAWAR and others
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 179, 197, 196
Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss.179, 197 & 196--Order passed beyond the mandatory prescribed period--Extension of time sought by the authorities--Scope--Taxpayer / company approached the Appellate Tribunal contending that the original order had been passed against it beyond the period of limitation--Department filed Reference Application against acceptance of appeal filed by the taxpayer--Validity--Applicant / Department remained unable to submit / file any documentation regarding any extension granted by the Collector or FBR for purposes of Ss. 197 & 179 of the Customs Act, 1969--Assertion of the applicant was that the Department no longer possessed the original record in the matter--It was for the applicant to satisfy the Court that the original order, which was sought to be upheld in the Reference jurisdiction, was a legal order passed within the time prescribed under S. 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, but the same had not been done--Record revealed that the original order was passed 41 days beyond the period prescribed for undertaking the assessment after issuance of the Show-Cause Notice-- An order passed beyond the mandatory period prescribed will not sustain in the eyes of law, and such legal objection can be raised by a party at any point--High Court viewed that that the Reference was based on an order which was not sustainable in the eyes of law therefore the same (Reference) was not maintainable--Reference was dismissed, in circumstances. ORDER: BABAR SATTAR, JUSTICE:---.--- Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 raised preliminary objections with regard� to the maintainability of the reference. He submitted that the reference was not authorized for purposes of section 196(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 as no authorization in writing has been produced by the applicant authorizing the Additional Director to file the instant reference. He then submitted that the original order dated 14.07.2010 was barred by limitation as pursuant to section 179(3) of the Customs Act the order had to be passed within 120 days of the issuance of the show-cause…