2001 PLP 671 (CLC)
Mir AMJAD ALI ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
| Citation | 2001 PLP 671 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed and Zahid Kurban Alavi, JJ |
| Parties | Mir AMJAD ALI ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, HIGH COURT OF SINDH, |
| Primary Law | (a) Auction Notice |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 671 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Auction Notice as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 671 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed and Zahid Kurban Alavi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 671 (CLC) (Mir AMJAD ALI ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, HIGH COURT OF SINDH,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Samiuddin Sami for Appellant.
- Ainuddin Khan and Sheikh Munir‑ur‑Rehman, A.A.‑Gs. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Expression where is" in an auction notice respecting motor vehicle‑‑‑Import‑‑‑Expression was only referable to the physical attributes of the vehicles to terms of auction notice and did not relate to motor vehicle tax liability against the auctioned vehicles. (b) Words and phrases‑‑ ...... As is where is "‑‑‑Connotation.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Words and phrases‑‑ ...... As is where is "‑‑‑Connotation. Samiuddin Sami for Appellant. Ainuddin Khan and Sheikh Munir‑ur‑Rehman, A.A.‑Gs. for Respondents. SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑‑ Having heard the learned counsel we are of the view that the expression "as is where is" is only referable to the physical attributes of the vehicles in terms of auction notice, dated 7‑2‑1999 and not the intent motor vehicle tax liability against these vehicles. Learned Official Assignee who appeared before us on the next date confirmed that the appellants were never apprised of the tax liabilities against the vehicles auctioned. It is also contended 'that the appellants had informed the Official Assignee by letter, dated 8‑4‑1999 that payment of tax dues would be responsibility of the auctioning authority. In this regard the Official Assignee has stated that this letter never came to his notice and he became aware of the stand taken by the appellants or it was repeated vide their letter, dated 7‑10‑1999. Be that as it may, the Official Assignee has pointed out that no sale proceeds are available with them and the entire amounts collected through auction of vehicle has been distributed amongst various claimants. In the circumstances both learned A.A.‑Gs. have suggested and such suggestion has been accepted by Mr. Samiuddin that the appellants will make an application for exemption from payment of motor vehicle taxes in respect of the vehicle purchased for the time that they were not in use, which upon certification by the Official Assignee as to the period of non‑user would be delivered to Shaikh Munir‑ur‑Rehman who will refer the matter to Secretary Excise and Taxation Department and attempt to seek exemption from payment of motor vehicle tax. It is clarified that such exemption will only be applicable till the date the vehicles were purchased by the appellants and from that date onwards the appellants will be liable to pay motor vehicle tax. With these observations the petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M‑128/K Order accordingly.