2003 PLP 575 (PTD)
PERVAIZ KASHANIAN Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS‑and another
| Citation | 2003 PLP 575 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | PERVAIZ KASHANIAN Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS‑and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 575 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 575 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 575 (PTD) (PERVAIZ KASHANIAN Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS‑and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Jamal A. Sukhera for Petitioner.
- Sh. Izharul Haq for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Jamal A. Sukhera for Petitioner. Sh. Izharul Haq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th May, 2000. Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondent issued show‑cause notice to the petitioner on 5‑9‑1984 under section 168 of Customs Act, 1969. Petitioner submitted reply of the same controverted the allegations levelled in the show‑cause notice on 9‑12‑1984. The case of the petitioner was decided by the Collector vide order, dated 6‑3‑1985. Petitioner being aggrieved order of the Collector filed appeal before the Member C.B.R. on 25‑3‑1985 who heard the matter on 19‑2‑1985 and reserved the judgment and finally dismissed the appeal on 12‑7‑1988. Petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Member Judicial Central Board of Revenue who dismissed the same vide order, dated 14‑12‑1989 that the revision petition is not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appeal was heard by the competent Authority on 19‑2‑1986 and judgment was reserved and the same was dismissed on 12‑7‑1988. Therefore, the order of‑ the appellate authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:‑‑‑ 1996 SCMR 669 (S. Iftikhar‑ud‑Din Haidar Gardezi's case); PLD 1982 Lahore 1 (Crescent Sugar Mills' case) and PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 21 (Sh. Mehmood Ahmad's case).
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law. He further submits that the petitioner filed written arguments on 27‑11‑1986 and thereafter appeal was dismissed after perusing the written arguments of the petitioner. Therefore, impugned order, dated 12‑7‑1988 is valid and sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that petitioner filed appeal before the C.B.R. on 25‑3‑1985 who heard the same on 19‑2‑1986 and judgment was reserved. Thereafter, petitioner filed written arguments on 27‑11‑1986 but the appeal was dismissed on 12‑7‑1988 after the considerable delay. Therefore, order, dated 12‑7‑1988 is not. sustainable in the eyes of law and is in violation of principle of natural justice and fairplay. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside meaning thereby the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending adjudication. During the pendency of the writ petition, the law has changed. Therefore, parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal on 23‑5‑2000 who is directed to decide the same within three months positively even at the cost of day to day proceedings. Case property shall not be disposed of by the respondent till the aforesaid date. Disposed of with these observations. S.A.K./P‑120/L Impugned order set aside.