Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3573 = 1963 SLD 3573 = 1963 PTD 328
Lahore High Court
Letters Patent Appeal No. 11 of 1957, decided on 15th January 1963.  
Presented By: Manzur Qadir, C. J. and Faizullah Khan, J  
M. Z. Kitchlew for Appellant.   Sh. Abdul Haq for
Respondent.   Dates of hearing : 8th and 9th January 1963.

ALI MUHAMMAD-Appellant  

VERSUS

  FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN-Respondent

Law: Estate Duty Act, 1950

Section:

(a) Estate Duty Act (X of 1950)-----   ----- S. 69 read with S. 55 S. 69 bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts to question "levy" of estate duty, such levy being imposed "under the Act"-S. 55 provides remedies for questioning "accountability or correctness of account" [Raleigh Investment Co., Ltd. v. Governor-General-in-Council P L D 1947 P C 19] rel.]   Jurisdiction-Objection-May be raised "however late in the day", if on facts admitted or proved defect of jurisdiction is manifest-Entertained by High Court for first time at Letters Patent Appeal stage-[Raleigh Investment Co., Ltd. v. Governor General-in-Council P L D 1947 P C 19 and Ramlal Hargopal v. Kishan Chand I L R (1924) 51 Cal. 361 ref.]   Estate Duty Act (X of 1950), S. 69-"Nothing done under this Act"-"Under this Act" means "by use of the machi nery" provided by the Act-Does not relate to accuracy of action "in point of law"-Levy of estate duty-Not questionable before Civil Courts-Jurisdiction in such cases barred even in absence of a provision like S. 69.   The Estate Duty Act, 1950 is a complete code by itself and any grievance in regard to levy of estate duty can be remedied within the four corners of that code as envisaged by section 55 of the Act, and a civil suit to challenge levy of estate duty is specifically barred by section 69.   The phrase "under the Act" does not relate to accuracy of levy "in point of law".   In cases like this, the bar would operate even in absence of a provision to that effect.   The language of section 69, however, makes the ouster clear.   Raleigh Investment Co., Ltd. v. Governor-General-in-Council PLD 1947 PC 19 rel. JUDGMENT   FAIZULLAH KHAN, J.-This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is against the judgment and decree, dated the 10th December 1956, of B. Z. Kaikaus, J. delivered in R. S. A. No. 253 of 1954. The facts giving rise to this appeal, so far as they are not disputed, may be shortly narrated. One Haji Shams ud-Din, who was possessed of considerable property, on the 2nd January 1931, executed a waqf alanafs…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register