Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG = 1962 SLD 2657 = 1962 PLD 83
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 21-D of 1961, decided on 26th January 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., Fazle-Akbar and B. Z. Kaikaus, JJ
H. S. Suhrawardy and Ahmad Sobha Senior Advocates Supreme Court (Farid Ahmad Advocate Supreme Court with them) instructed by A. T. Sadi Attorney for Appellant.   K. Hussain Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by S. M. Abbass Attorney for
Respondent.   Dates of hearing : 23rd and 26th January 1962.  

MESSRS HABIB INDUSTRIES LTD.---Appellant  

VERSUS

  PAKISTAN THROUGH THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,   CHITTAGONG-Respondent

Law:

Section:

(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of East Pakistan. Dacca, dated the 13th April 1960, in Civil Revision Cases Nos. 1186 to 1188 of 1959).   Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878)-----S. 198-Does not "bar" suit, but prescribes limitations of time, with regard to "notice" concerning, and in respect of institution of, suit.   Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (IX of 1887)------S. 15, Second Sched., Item (19)-Jurisdiction of Small Cause Court to entertain suit-To be determined with reference to "subject-matter" and not to plaintiff's "contention" as respects subject-matter.   The jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes to entertain a suit depends upon the "subject-matter" and not upon the plaintiff's "contention as respects subject-matter."   Where it was objected by defendant (Government) that the plaintiff's suit instituted in the Court of Small Cause, for the recovery of "over-charge" of sales-tax, was, in reality, a suit for "declaration" that the amount of sales-tax leviable should be determined with reference to the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of forward exchange contract in regard to the purchase and sale, rather than that in force at time of actual importation of goods, and that thus the suit was not cognizable by the Small Cause Court Held, that the objection had no substance.   Raleigh Investment Company case 67 1 A 222 (236) rel.   Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878)-----S. 198 read with S. 188 Finality of assessment is only to be considered "within limits of statute"-Jurisdiction of Civil Courts not "impliedly" barred by enactment of "special provisions."   Although the special jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to deal with the question of assessment of sales-tax cannot be doubted, and the machinery provided for the purpose by the Sea Customs Act is elaborate and is expressed so as to achieve finality, yet that finality (S. 188) is only to be understood within the limits of the statute, and those special provisions cannot by implication have the effect of excluding the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register