| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1998 SLG 1182 1998 SLD 1182 1998 PLD 15 |
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petitions Nos. 105 of 1976, 690, 691 of 1993, 168, 192, 276 of 1994 and 504 and 596 of 1996; decided on 31st July, 1997. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1997.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA AND MRS. KHALIDA RACHID, JUSTICE
Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Mian Mohibullah Kakakhel and Qazi Muhammad Anwar for Petitioners. Mursaleen Khan, Standing Counsel for the Federal Government. Saifur Rehman Kiyani and Eid Muhammad Khattak for the Central Board of Revenue/Customs Department.
Writ Petitions Nos. 105 of 1976, 690, 691 of 1993, 168, 192, 276 of 1994 and 504 and 596 of 1996; decided on 31st July, 1997. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1997.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA AND MRS. KHALIDA RACHID, JUSTICE
Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Mian Mohibullah Kakakhel and Qazi Muhammad Anwar for Petitioners. Mursaleen Khan, Standing Counsel for the Federal Government. Saifur Rehman Kiyani and Eid Muhammad Khattak for the Central Board of Revenue/Customs Department.
MESSRS SAIF TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED
VS
PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE (FINANCE DIVISION), ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS --RespondentS
Law:
Section:
Finance Act (VII of 1992) S. 15 Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Preamble Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance (XI of 1972), S.4 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.70(4) & Fourth Sched., Entries Nos.16 & 17 Vires of Finance Act, 1992 Section 15, Finance Act, 1992 whereby Federal Government was empowered to levy fee for education on specified companies was challenged to be ultra vires of Fourth Sched. to Art.70(4) of the Constitution Federal or Concurrent Legislative Lists indicated that subject of education was not included therein Though Serial No.16 of Federal Legislative List describes, "Federal Agencies and Institutes for research, for professional or technical training, or for promotion of special studies"; and entry at Serial No.17 adds, "Education as respects Pakistan students in foreign countries and foreign students in Pakistan", yet such entries had no nexus with subject of education covered by impugned fee Education being Provincial matter, Federal Government could frame no legislation thereabout, for it did not fall either under Federal Legislative List or Concurrent Legislative List Any law made by Legislature conflicting, with the provisions of the Constitution was void, for law making power was always subject to the provisions of the Constitution Impugned impost made by Federal Government beyond the legislative powers specified by the Constitution could rightly be declared as ultra vires the Constitution Nothing was found in impugned provision of law to show that fee was levied for some special services rendered or to be rendered to petitioners (Companies) Petitioners were already paying education fee at specified rate per worker per annum to Provincial Government under Workers' Children (Education) Act, 1972 --For creating any liability, there should be a parent law in that field No parent law was in existence for charging education fee Fixation of fee in question, through rules, was, thus, violative of the Constitution Provision of S.15, Finance Act, 1992, was, therefore, declared to be unlawful, without jurisdiction and repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution. [Vires of legislation]. Sohail Textile Mill and others v.…
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