1990 PLP 784 (CLC)
PERVEZ AFTAB‑‑Petitioner Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 784 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Saleem Akhtar, I |
| Parties | PERVEZ AFTAB‑‑Petitioner Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Entertainment Duty Act (X of 1958)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 784 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Entertainment Duty Act (X of 1958)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 784 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Saleem Akhtar, I.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 784 (CLC) (PERVEZ AFTAB‑‑Petitioner Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. T.A. Fareedi for Petitioner.
- AA. Mohammad Arbab for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑,‑S.6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Penalty‑‑‑Evasion of excise duty to the extent of Rs. 24.00‑‑‑Department imposed penalty of Rs.800.00‑‑ Maximum penalty which could be imposed under S.6 of the Act could have been Rs.500.00 or a sum not more than five times the evaded duty‑‑‑Order of Department imposing penalty beyond Rs.500 was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. [p. 7841 A & B
Judgment & Decree
Sh. T.A. Fareedi for Petitioner. AA. Mohammad Arbab for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th March, 1989. AJMAL MIAN, C J.‑‑The Petitioner has impugned the orders dated 30‑3‑1980 and 18‑5‑1982 passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner is the owner of a cinema. On 8‑3‑1980 (sic) the tickets and found that there was evasion of excise duty to the extent of Rs.24. The petitioner was issued a show‑cause notice. After hearing the petitioner, the impugned order dated 30‑3‑1980 was passed by the respondent No.1 against which the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the respondent No.2 by the aforesaid impugned order dated 18 5‑1982. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition. Mr. Fareedi the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even if it is to be held that there was alleged evasion of the excise duty of Rs.24 A the maximum penalty could have been Rs.500 or a sum not more than five times, as per section 6 of the West Pakistan Entertainment Duty Act 1958 which contention seems to be correct as in the impugned orders the amount of penalty imposed is Rs.800 and not Rs.500. We would therefore, allow the petition and declare that the impugned order beyond Rs.500 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There will be no order as to cost. M.Y.H./P‑123/K Petition allowed.