| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 4113 2003 SLD 4113 2003 PTCL 66 (2002) 85 TAX 373 (2002) 85 TAX 388 2002 SCMR 312 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1998 decided on 26-09-2001
MR., JUSTICE NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUIMR., JUSTICE, JAVED IQBAL
Appellants by: Mr. Irfan Qadir, and Mr, Mehr Khan Malik Advocates.
Respondents by: Mr. A. Karim Malik, and Ch. Akhtar Ali,Advocates
Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1998 decided on 26-09-2001
MR., JUSTICE NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUIMR., JUSTICE, JAVED IQBAL
Appellants by: Mr. Irfan Qadir, and Mr, Mehr Khan Malik Advocates.
Respondents by: Mr. A. Karim Malik, and Ch. Akhtar Ali,Advocates
Zaman Cement Company (Pvt.) LtdVsCentral Board of Revenue and others
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 31A
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 21
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 2A,25,185(3)
(CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973)].....Article 2-A.....Section 31-A of the Customs Act is neither violative of Article 2A and Article 25 of the Constitution nor against the judicial pronouncements. Section 31-A of the Customs Act is neither violative of Article 2A and Article 25 of the Constitution nor against the judicial pronouncements. While there is a power in the Legislature and other taxing authorities to classify person or properties into categories and to subject them to different rates of taxes, there is none to target incidence of taxation in such a way that similarly placed persons are dealt with not only dissimilarly but discriminately. Article 185.....The function of the judiciary is not to legislate or to question the wisdom of Legislature in making a particular law nor it can refuse to enforce it even if the result of it be to nullify its own decisions provided the law is competently made. Its vires can only be challenged being violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution and not on the ground that it nullifies the of the Superior Court. COURT.....The Court cannot assume either the legislative or the executive function. CUSTOMS ACT, 1969 (IV OF 1969)...Section 19....The stipulated period in S.R.O. No. 484(I)/92 was expired on 30.6.1995 and admittedly the date of bill of lading is 29.8.1996 while LC was opened on 13.9.1995, the date as mentioned hereinabove pertaining to bill of lading is indicative of the fact that at particular moment the S.R.O. No. 484(I)/92 was not enforced and accordingly cannot be pressed into service for any exemption.--A careful analysis of the S,R.O. No. 484(I)/92 and its ingredients would show that it is free from any ambiguity, absurdity or confusion and the language employed therein is so plain which cannot be twisted whatever principles of interpretation may be pressed into service because the question of any insertion, deletion or addition does not arise as it is to be interpreted in such a manner that the object of its issuance is promoted rather than hampered.The stipulated period in S.R.O. No. 484(I)/92 was expired on 30.6.1995 and admittedly the date of bill of lading is 29.8.1996…