2018 PLP 93 (PTD)
Mst. KOUSAR KAMAL Versus CHAIRMAN, CUSTOMS, FBR and others
| Citation | 2018 PLP 93 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Masud Abid Naqvi, J |
| Parties | Mst. KOUSAR KAMAL Versus CHAIRMAN, CUSTOMS, FBR and others |
| Primary Law | Customs Recovery Rules, 1992 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 93 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Recovery Rules, 1992 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 93 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Masud Abid Naqvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 93 (PTD) (Mst. KOUSAR KAMAL Versus CHAIRMAN, CUSTOMS, FBR and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sikandar Javed for Petitioner.
- Usman Azam on behalf of Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
R.7
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Recovery proceedings were initiated by Model Custom Collectorate, "Peshawar" with regard to property situated at "Lahore"
Petitioner assailed said notices at Lahore under Art.199 of the Constitution
Relief claimed by petitioner could be granted by High Court within whose jurisdiction persons were performing/discharging their duties
High Court (Lahore) declined in interfere in the matter
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. D.G. Customs Valuation, Karachi and another v. Messrs Trade International Lahore and others 2014 SCMR 15 and Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue and others PLD 1997 SC 334 ref. Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue and others PLD 1997 SC 334 fol.
Judgment & Decree
MASUD ABID NAQVI, J.
Precise grievance of the petitioner is that house No.73/B-2, Gulberg-III Lahore is jointly owned by the petitioner as well as her 05 brother and sisters and has been attached without any lawful justification vide impugned letters dated 05.03.2012 and 27.03.2012 issued by respondents Nos.4 and
5. Said property has no nexus with Messrs Delta Tires and Rubber Company Limited against which recovery proceedings have been initiated under the Customs Recovery Rules, 2001.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned letters are not only illegal, unlawful but is not sustainable at law because the house in possession of the petitioner does not belong to brother of the petitioner namely Iqtedar Ahmad Chaudhary rather house is under the joint ownership. On the other hand, relying on the reported judgments i.e. D.G. Customs Valuation, Karachi and another v. Messrs Trade International Lahore and others (2014 SCMR 15) and Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue and others (PLD 1997 SC 334), learned counsel for the respondents argues that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter in issue and the house is owned by Iqtedar Ahmad Chaudhary in view of the record attached with parawise comments. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that property/house No.73/B-2, Gulberg-III Lahore measuring 04-kanals stands in the name of Iqtedar Ahmad Chaudhary as is evident from the record of SECP and impugned letters regarding attachment were issued to Iqtedar Ahmad Chaudhary/ Director of Messrs Delta Tires and Rubber Company Limited. Even otherwise, the impugned letters were issued by the Model Custom Collectorate, Peshawar and office of Superintendent Custom Division Hazara Abbottabad and the relief claimed is also against the abovementioned officials, hence the above relief can be granted by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the persons are performing/ discharging their duties. In reported judgment i.e. Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue and others (PLD 1997 SC 334), the August Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:-- "
8. We may observed that it has become a common practice to file a writ petition either at Peshawar, or Lahore, or Rawalpindi or Multan etc. to challenge the order of assessment passed at Karachi by adding a ground for impugned the notification under which a particular levy is imposed. This practice is to be depreciated." In view of above, this petition is not maintainable before this court and the same is accordingly dismissed. MH/K-20/L Petition dismissed.