Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 561 1998 SLD 561 1998 PTD 2999 (1998) 78 TAX 243 1999 PTCL 1
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1917-K of 1998, decision dated: 8-07-1998
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ
Siraj-ul-Haque Memon, Advocate Supreme Court with Naraindas C. Motaini, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents

Messrs STATE CEMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD

VS

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and another

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 36,5

Law: General Clauses Act, 1897

Section: 14

(a) Sales Tax Act (IX of 1990)---S.36---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.14---Demand in terms of S.36, Sales Tax Act, 1990 need not be a single demand at the level of a specified officer---More than one demand in terms of S.36, Sales Tax Act, 1990 at the-level of the same officer cannot be ruled out unless manifest injustice and palpable inequity is the result thereof. While interpreting section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, '1990, one cannot be unmindful of the, provision of section 14 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which postulates that where, under a Federal statute, any power is conferred then, unless a different intention appears, such power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. Thus, a demand in terms of section 36 of the Sales Tax Act need not be a single demand at the level of a specified officer. Fairly and beneficially stated the proposition would be that more than one demand in terms of section 36 at the level of the same officer cannot easily be ruled out unless manifest injustice and palpable inequity is the result thereof. (b) Sales Tax Act (IX of 1990)--- ----S.5 [as amended by Finance Act (IX of 1996)]---Amendment made in S.5, Sales Tax Act, 1990 by the Finance Act, 1996, could not be deemed to be a remedial provision to have retrospective effect. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Olympia 1988 PTD 532 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shahnawaz Ltd. 1993 SCMR 73 distinguished. (c) Interpretation of statutes--- ---- Interpretation of a statute is to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used unless that is at variance with the intention of the Legislature which intention is to be collected from the statute itself---If the language of the statutory provision is unambiguous and the statute's meaning is clear, the statute must be accorded the express meaning without deviation. Crawford on The Construction of Statutes and Mexwell on the Interpretation of Statutes ref. (d) Interpretation of statutes--- ---- Casus omissus, rule of---Application---Omission in a statute cannot, as a general rule, be supplied by construction---Principles. Omission in a statute cannot, as a general rule, be supplied by construction. Thus, if a…
🔒
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