1987 PLP 1194 (CLC)
Messrs MOTHERCAT LTD.‑‑Appellant Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1194 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abaid Ullah Khan and Akhtar Hassan, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs MOTHERCAT LTD.‑‑Appellant Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1194 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1194 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abaid Ullah Khan and Akhtar Hassan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1194 (CLC) (Messrs MOTHERCAT LTD.‑‑Appellant Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdur Rashid for Appellant.
- Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad for Respondents Nos 1 and 2.
- Sheikh Ahmad Fazal for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 32 & 83‑‑Custom duty, recovery of‑‑Double recovery of duty its legality‑‑Double recovery of customs duty, excise duty and sales tax, touching machinery upon which such duties and tax had already been levied and paid, held, was illegal and unwarranted‑‑Amount unlawfully realised by Customs Department was ordered to be refunded to him in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Abdur Rashid for Appellant. Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad for Respondents Nos 1 and
2. Sheikh Ahmad Fazal for Respondent No.
3. Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1987. ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.‑‑The admitted facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 4th March, 1975, dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of Rs.2,97,926.63 may be shortly stated. The appellant, Messrs Mothercat Limited, Karachi, and the late Mr. George Talia entered into joint venture agreements for the execution of certain works relating to Indus Basin Project in Pakistan. They carried on joint venture business under the name and style of Talihap. The appellant is now the successor‑in‑interest of Talihap.
2. The West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), respondent 3, under the terms of contract which it entered into with Talihap, reimbursed the latter the customs duty, excise duty and sales tax which it had to pay to the Federal Government of Pakistan in respect of the machinery which it had imported from abroad. When after completion of works the machinery was put up for sale the Customs Department of the Government of Pakistan demanded payment of customs duty, excise duty and sale tax over again and the same amounting to Rs.2,97,926.63 were paid. Describing the levy of customs duty, excise duty and sales tax second time to be unlawful the appellant brought suit to recover the same. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court.
3. The double recovery of customs duty, excise duty and sales tax touching the machinery upon which such duties and tax had already been levied and paid was illegal and unwarranted. The learned counsel representing the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Collector, General Excise and Land Customs, Lahore, respondents 1 and 2, could not legally support such an unlawful levy. The appellant is entitled to the refund of the amount in question which respondents 1 and 2 unlawfully realised from it. The decision of the learned trial Court rejecting the appellant's claim is not sustainable. The appeal is accepted, the dismissal of the appellant's suit recorded by the learned trial Court is set aside and the suit is decreed against respondents 1 and 2 with costs throughout. In view of the decree against respondents 1 and 2 the appellant does not press its claim against respondent
3. So, the suit qua respondent 3 stands dismissed. H.B.T./M‑40/L Appeal accepted.