| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1532 2008 SLD 1532 2008 SCMR 178 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos.2229-L and 2230-L of 2005, decision dated: 6-04-2006.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-11-2005 passed by Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.14773 and 14574 of 2003)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ
M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Muhammad Saeed Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. and Sanaullah Khan, D.F.C., D.I. Khan on Court Notice. Mrs. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.G., Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti, Cane Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and
Civil Petitions Nos.2229-L and 2230-L of 2005, decision dated: 6-04-2006.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-11-2005 passed by Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.14773 and 14574 of 2003)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ
M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Muhammad Saeed Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. and Sanaullah Khan, D.F.C., D.I. Khan on Court Notice. Mrs. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.G., Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti, Cane Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and
FACTOR SUGAR MILLS LTD.
VS
SECRETARY FOOD and others
Law:
Section:
Punjab Sugar Cane (Development) Cess, Rules, 1964---Rr. 4(1) & 5(1)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Determination of quantum of cess---Show-cause notice issued to petitioner showed the allegation that sugar-cane cess had not been correctly worked out by the petitioner and that amount of cess paid by the petitioner was much less than the amount due---Commissioner vide separate orders determined amount of cess due from the petitioner with penalty---Appeal filed by petitioner against said orders before Secretary Food having been dismissed, petitioner filed constitutional petition, which also having been dismissed, it had filed petition for leave to appeal---Contention of petitioner was that it had been discriminated against because in the case of other sugar mills penalty had been imposed at 33% and the adjustment of the cess which had been paid to N.W.F.P. Government, had also been allowed, whereas such concession had not been given to the petitioner---Assistant Advocate-General had stated that after setting aside order of Cane Commissioner and the of High Court petition be sent back to Cane Commissioner for the purpose of considering that aspect of the case in the light of s in case of other sugar mills---Counsel for petitioner accepted such arrangement and agreed for the remand of the case---Impugned order passed by the Cane Commissioner and impugned of the High Court were set aside and case was remanded to Cane Commissioner for re-determination of quantum of cess, penalty as well as question of adjustment of the cess---Petitions were converted into appeals and disposed them accordingly. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---These petitions call in question the judgment dated 2nd November, 2005 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. 2. Precisely, stating the facts of the case are that show cause notices dated 13-4-2002 and 7-2-2003 were issued to the petitioner under rules 4(1) and 5(1) of the Punjab sugar Cane (Development) Cess, Rules, 1964 by the Cane Commissioner, Punjab. It was alleged therein that Sugar Cane Cess (hereinafter called the cess) had not been correctly worked out by the petitioner and the amount of cess paid was much…
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