| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 1011 2007 SLD 1011 2007 PTD 526 |
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petitions Nos.841, 869, 936, 1134, 1168, 1169, 1180, 1191, 1195, 1208, 1212, 1239, 1246, 1247, 1260, 1283 of 2004, 5, 6, 157, 158 of 2005, 222, 223, 50, 51, 844, 854 and 1845 of 2006, decision dated: 19-10-2006
SHAH, JEHAN KHAN, JUSTICE EJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, JUSTICE
M. Sardar Khan for Petitioner. Salah-ud-Din Khan D.A.G. and Abdul Latif Yousafzai for
Respondents.
Writ Petitions Nos.841, 869, 936, 1134, 1168, 1169, 1180, 1191, 1195, 1208, 1212, 1239, 1246, 1247, 1260, 1283 of 2004, 5, 6, 157, 158 of 2005, 222, 223, 50, 51, 844, 854 and 1845 of 2006, decision dated: 19-10-2006
SHAH, JEHAN KHAN, JUSTICE EJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, JUSTICE
M. Sardar Khan for Petitioner. Salah-ud-Din Khan D.A.G. and Abdul Latif Yousafzai for
Respondents.
MESSRS GUL COOKING OIL and othersVEGETABLE GHEE (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
VS
PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 6 others
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 18
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.18---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 247(3) & 199---Constitutional petition---Imposition of customs duty and regulatory duty--Grievance of petitioner was that department demanded from them customs duty and regulatory duty at the rate specified through subsequent amendments which were not applicable to the Tribal Areas as required, under Sub-clause (3) of Art.247 of the Constitution---Controversy agitated by parties was to the effect; that whether petitioners were legally required to pay customs duty and regulatory duty calculated on the basis of amendment of Acts of the Parliament in the principal statute i.e. Customs Act, 1969, despite the fact that amending Acts of the Parliament or Provincial Assembly, were not extended to the Tribal Areas in terms of Art.247(3) of the Constitution---Validity---Amendment made by the Parliament or Provincial Assembly, would not apply to the Tribal Areas automatically, but with the process as envisaged in Art.247 of the Constitution, whereunder, it was the President and not the Parliament to decide which Act was to be applied in the Tribal Areas---Contention that amending Act merged into original or principal Act and if the principal Act was duly applied to Tribal Areas after the amendment, it would be in force in amended form, was repelled---Act of Parliament amending or repealing the principal statute, could not be extended to Tribal Area without approval of the President and in accordance with prescribed procedure under clause (3) of Art.247 of the Constitution---Department could not demand excessive customs duty and excessive regulatory duty imposed through Amending Acts which were not enforced in Tribal Areas---Demand of department for excessive customs and regulatory duty specified through unextended amending Acts, in the Tribal Area was unconstitutional, arbitrary, mala fide and unjust---Department was directed to refrain from such illegal demand, accordingly. AIR 1986 SC 513; Sharbat Khan and others v. Haji Lal Gul and others 1984 PCr.LJ 4.11; Hazrat Muhammad v. The State PLD 1988 Pesh. 11 and Sadbar Khan v. Amir Hussain and others PLD 1995 Pesh. 14 ref (b) Interpretation ofโฆ
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