| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 2538 2007 SLD 2538 2007 PTCL 260 2008 SCMR 615 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P. No. 702-L of 2003, heard on 7-07-2006, (On appeal from the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 10-2-2003 passed in C.A. No.316 of 2001)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZAR BHANDARI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
C.P. No. 702-L of 2003, heard on 7-07-2006, (On appeal from the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 10-2-2003 passed in C.A. No.316 of 2001)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZAR BHANDARI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE,
VS
ZAMINDARA PAPER and BOARD MILLS and others
Law: Central Excise Rules, 1944
Section: 10
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
[Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......R 10(2)(3)-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Non-mentioning of specific rule in show-cause notice---Effect---High Court vide impugned had opined that since the show-cause notice did not contain specific provision of law and rules, same was ineffective and void---Validity---Substantial compliance had been made by making reference of rules to identify the period of time during which tax had been allegedly evaded---Merely for the reason that sub-rules (2) & (3) of R.10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 had not been mentioned, it was not proper to declare show-cause notice illegal---Judgment of the High Court, was not sustainable, in circumstances---Instead of taking into consideration technicalities, the court should look into the matter with different angles as to whether substantial compliance had been made or if compliance of any of the sub-rules had been omitted, then what prejudice was likely to cause to the party to whom show-cause notice was given---In the present case no prejudice had been caused to respondents because substantial compliance of the relevant rules had been made---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and was allowed, impugned was set aside and case was sent back to the Collector Sales Tax and Central Excise for the purpose of decision of the case expeditiously. Assistant Collector Customs and others v. Messrs Khyber Electric Lamps and 3 others 2001 SCMR 838 rel. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- In this case the question for consideration is as to whether non-mention of specific rule in show-cause notice, dated 26-9-2000 under which the licence fee was being charged was fatal and sufficient to declare it void. Learned High Court vide the impugned judgment had opined that since the show-cause notice did not contain specific provision of law and the rules, therefore, the same was ineffective and void. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in the show-cause notice relevant rules were mentioned as it is evident from its contents but the respondents instead of filing the reply and contesting the same prolonged the proceedings by challenging its…
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