PTD 1982

1982 PLP 16 (PTD)

CRESCENT FACTORIES LTD. Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 552 of 1965, decided on 16th November 1976.
Honorable Judges
Nasim Hassan Shah, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1982 PLP 16 (PTD)
Forum / Court High Court Lahore
Bench Members Nasim Hassan Shah, J
Parties CRESCENT FACTORIES LTD. Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 16 (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 16 (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court Lahore bench comprising: Nasim Hassan Shah, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 16 (PTD) (CRESCENT FACTORIES LTD. Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Javid Hashmi for Petitioner.
  • Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Khan, Deputy Attorney‑General for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ --‑‑Art. 199‑No finding given by competent authority on question whether petitioner firm liable to pay sales tax still demand made for payment of same‑Collector directed to entrust case to competent Sales Tax Officer to ascertain such aspect of matter.

Judgment & Decree

The question raised in this petition is similar to the one which arose in W. P. No. 863 of 1966 entitled United Vegetable Ghee Mills of Unites Industries Ltd., Lyallpur v. Superintendent, Central Excise Department, Lyallpur Etc., namely whether the demand made against the petitioner‑firm by the impugned order of the Superintendent, Central Excise & Land Customs. Sahiwal was valid inasmuch as it was submitted that the competent authority to create the demand was not the Superintendent, Central Excise & Land Customs, Sahiwal hence the impugned order passed by him is without lawful authority.

2. Since, however, there has been no finding so far on the question as to whether the petitioner‑firm is liable to pay sales tax by a competent authority, the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Lahore may entrust the case to the competent Sales Tax Officer to ascertain this aspect of the matter. Since this matter is a very old one this should be done as expedi tiously as possible and the liability of the petitioner‑Company, if any, be determined in accordance with law at an early date.

3. This petition stands decided in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.