| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLD 512 = 1990 CLC 943 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.D-908 of 1989, decided on 19th October, 1989.
Presented By: Before Saleem Akhtar and Wajihuddin Ahmad JJ
S. Irtaza Hussain Zaidi fur Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Constitutional Petition No.D-908 of 1989, decided on 19th October, 1989.
Presented By: Before Saleem Akhtar and Wajihuddin Ahmad JJ
S. Irtaza Hussain Zaidi fur Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
ICI PAKISTAN Ltd.---Petitioner
VERSUS
PAKISTAN through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistani in the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others---Respondents
Law: Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)
Section: 36
Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)--- ---S. 36---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Excise duty---Liability to pay --Petitioner was adjudged liable to excise duty at specified rate but exempted from payment of sales tax---Petitioner's appeal against adjudication of liability was dismissed while his revision before Federal Government was still pending-- During pendency of revision, petition was served with notice for recovery of assessed amount of Excise Duty---Petitioner contested the notice before Authority and then in appeal but failed to secure stay order against recovery of Excise Duty---Constitutional petition against recovery of Excise Duty-- Competency---Proceedings against petitioner for recovery of Excise Duty pertained to an adjudication which had already passed the stage of appeal and were pending in revision before Federal Government---All that the order challenged in Constitutional petition sought to implement were recoveries under such orders---Fundamentals of controversy had already been decided in the earlier set of proceedings, residuary out of which, Federal Government, in its revisional jurisdiction was currently seized of---Leaving basic order in the field, a party cannot choose to go about attacking procedural and formal orders. In the present case all that the Excise Authorities, pursuant to the impugned order in original are doing is to effect recoveries under a different set of orders which have otherwise become enforcible. In reality, so, long as the orders, which currently stand seized in revision, stand and are not either upset or suspended the Excise Authorities were not even obliged to pass any formal order of recovery, as the one impugned here, and recoveries could be made under the subsisting orders themselves, as the same expressly provide for recoveries. Like would be the incidents in appeal against such order. The rule is that a party cannot leave the basic order in the field and choose to go about attacking procedural and formal orders following thereupon and yet remain unaffected by the impact of the former. Examining the case from another angle, it is nobody's case that mere filing or pendency of a…