| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 37 1971 SLD 37 1971 SCMR 68 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 68-D of 1966, decision dated: 4th June 1970.
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JUSTICE SAJJAD AHMAD, JUSTICE WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE
K. M. Subhan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. Nurul Huq, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. A. M. Khan Chowdhury, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
Respondent No. 3 Ex parte.
Civil Appeal No. 68-D of 1966, decision dated: 4th June 1970.
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JUSTICE SAJJAD AHMAD, JUSTICE WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE
K. M. Subhan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. Nurul Huq, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. A. M. Khan Chowdhury, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
Respondent No. 3 Ex parte.
NIZAMUDDIN AHMAD
VS
THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX and 3 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951), Ss. 2(5), 3(3)(ii), 5(3) & 27(2) read with Central Board of Revenue Circular No. 15(2)-ST (17) 2/61 dated 10-1-1962-Sales tax-Refund-Sales tax correctly assessed according to law prevailing at time of export-Not amenable to any refund of excess tax-Government circular giving definition of "duty paid value" in a way entitling exporter to refund of excess sales tax but such circular cancelled before disposal of refund application--Held, Circular could not alter definition of "duty paid value" as given in statute nor could have retrospective effect so as to confer vested right in exporter to claim refund. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that since the application for refund was made on the 7th April 1962, 10 days before the cancellation of the directive of the 10th of January 1962, the appellant had acquired a vested right to claim refund in accordance with the terms of that directive and its cancellation could trot operate with retrospective effect. Held: This argument is, entirely misconceived, for, it overlooks the fact that the sales tax that was payable on the goods was payable according to the law prevailing at the time of its export. If the "duty paid value" as then calculated was correctly calculated according to the law prevailing at that time, then no question of refund could at all arise, for, even assuming that the Board's directive of the 10th of January 1962, could have had the effect of altering the definition of "duty paid value" as given in the Sales Tax Act, it could not possibly have had retrospective effect so as to change the definition from the date of the exports between January and April 1961. It is entirely fallacious, therefore, for the appellant to argue that he acquired any right to any refund by virtue of the circular of the Central Board of Revenue issued on the 10th of January 1962. If it applied at all, it could apply only to exports made from and after the date of its issue and not before that date. The directive could not be given retrospective effect. Apart from this question, a directive issued by the Central Board of Revenue under subsection (3) of section 5 of the Sales Tax…
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