Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2028 2008 SLD 2028 2008 PTD 950
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.D-131 of 2004, decision dated: 11-04-2008
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN AND GHULAM DASTAGIR SHAHANI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Messrs SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others

Law:

Section:

Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 33---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---S.R.O. 563(I)/88, dated 1-7-1988---Constitutional petition---Refund of excess duty---Limitation---Department while adjudicating the amount towards statutory provisions, had not taken the ground of limitation/laches rather had justified the absorption of duty paid---Before taking the issue in such contested position on merit, point of abnormal delay in the form of laches was to be seen first---Reference had been made by the petitioner on the notification S.R.O. 563(I)/88, dated 1-2-1988, while the first notice on record was sent after about 12 years and then the constitutional petition had been filed after about 3 years---No justification for the petitioner existed in such a situation, to exhume the dead issue---Constitutional petition suffering from laches, was dismissed. Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 64 and Pakistan Post Office v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1987 SCMR 1119 rel. ORDER MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---This petition has been filed in respect of refund of Rs.23,298,654 on the ground that this is excess export duty which has been charged by the respondents, the Customs Authorities. The petitioner's claim is based on interpretation of Notification No.S.R.O. 563(I)/88, dated 1-7-1988. Learned counsel has argued that the above amount was due in terms of the notification but excess duty has been charged without calculating the same in terms of above S.R.O. He submits that prior to that notices were issued in the year 2000-2001. He has also drawn our attention to the Annexures "F" and "G" which are letters, dated 5-12-2000 and 4-5-2001 and stated that the said claim has wrongly been denied by the respondents by their letters, dated 26-4-2001 and 26-5-2001 (Annexure "H" and "I" to the memo. of petition). Learned counsel for the respondents denied the claim of petitioner on merit and also on the ground of laches. After observing that the laches point can be a material point to proceed as apparently the claim is based on the Notification of 1988 while the petition has been filed in November, 2003, therefore, learned counsel…
🔒
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