1970 PLP 237 (SCMR)
YOUNUS SATTAR AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
| Citation | 1970 PLP 237 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | YOUNUS SATTAR AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 237 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 237 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 237 (SCMR) (YOUNUS SATTAR AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. M. Haidermota, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdur Rub II, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 7th March 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 15th April 1968, in Petition No. 121 of 1968). Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), S. 23-Certain notifications under S. 23 impugned in writ petition on ground that they were viola tive of Arts. 2, 48 & 225 of Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-High Court summarily dismissing petition-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider propriety of High Court's order.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution in the High Court of East Pakistan, calling in question a number of notifications issued under sec tion 23 of the Sea Customs Act, on the grounds inter alia that they were violative of Articles 2, 48 and 225 of the Constitution and that they were issued to give benefit to the Batala Engineering Company. The writ petition was filed after the petitioners had failed to get relief in departmental proceedings by way of appeal and revision. The order in revision was passed on 12‑1‑1968 and the writ petition was filed on the 14th' of April 1968. The petitioners prayed that oh declaration that the notifications had been issued without any lawful authority the respondents should be directed to refund to the petitioners duties and taxes realised on the basis of the same. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the relief of refund of taxes could not be granted under Article 98 of the Constitution and the petitioners should have moved the High Court in January 1965, when demand on the basis of the notifi cations was made. It was also observed that the ground of mala fide involved a controversial question of fact which could not be decided without taking evidence. It is contended that the learned Judges should not have summarily dismissed the writ petition even if the relief of refund of taxes already paid could not be granted under Article 98 of the Constitution. With regard to the question of mala fide, it is submitted that that was only one of the grounds taken in challeng ing the notifications and so far as the delay is concerned it is pointed out that the petitioners first tried to get relief through departmental proceedings as provided for in the Sea Customs Act and moved the High Court soon after the revisional application was dismissed. The contentions raised merit consideration and we grant leave to consider whether the High Court was right in summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners. A Security in the sum of Rs. 1,
000. Leave granted.