2005 PLP 2510 (YLR)
ABDUL KHALIL KHAN through Constituted Attorney — Petitioner Versus KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION through Administrator/
| Citation | 2005 PLP 2510 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL KHALIL KHAN through Constituted Attorney — Petitioner Versus KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION through Administrator/ |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 2510 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 2510 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 2510 (YLR) (ABDUL KHALIL KHAN through Constituted Attorney — Petitioner Versus KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION through Administrator/). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Qadir Khan for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Ch. Muhammad Rafique Rajori, Addl.A.-G. for Respondent No.4.
- S. Ziauddin Nasir, Standing Counsel for Respondents Nos.5, 6 and 8.
- Nemo for Respondent No.7.
- On the other hand, Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, contended that KPT warehouses in East and West Wharf were part of the port area and did not fall within the local limits of the respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Levy of octroi on the goods purchased in open auction by the petitioner, stored at bonded warehouses at the port
Contention of the petitioner was that the goods in question were purchased from within the local limits of the Metropolitan Corporation and had not been imported by the petitioner for consumption, use or sale therein, therefore, levy of octroi was not justified
Held, question whether a wharf fell within the municipal limits was an intricate question of fact which should not ordinarily be undertaken in Constitutional jurisdiction
Mere fact that the goods were stored in bonded warehouses showed that no taxes and duties had been paid thereon at the time of their auction
Octroi was indeed payable on such goods irrespective of the question whether they had been imported into the municipal limits from abroad or from place outside such limits within Pakistan
Under no circumstances could therefore the liability to pay octroi be avoided.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner had purchased certain goods in open auction, stored at bonded warehouses at East and West Wharf, Karachi, most of which were auctioned by Customs Authorities. At the time of purchase of the goods between March, 1990 to March, 1993, the officers of the respondent No.1 demanded payment of octroi (which was then leviable) to the extent of Rs.1,14,
060. The petitioner apparently made the payment under protest and has moved this Court for a direction for refund of the amount so paid. The petitioner's basic contention appears to be that the goods in question were purchased from within the local limits of the respondent No.1 and had not been imported by the petitioner for consumption, use or sale therein. On the other hand, Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, contended that KPT warehouses in East and West Wharf were part of the port area and did not fall within the local limits of the respondent No.1. However, without entering into this controversy we may mention that in Karachi Municipal Corporation v. Harjina Slat Chemicals (Pak) Ltd. and others 1988 SCMR 1259, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the question whether a wharf falls within the Municipal limits is an intricate question of fact which should not ordinarily be undertaken in Constitutional jurisdiction. In any event the mere fact that the goods were stored in bonded warehouses shows that no taxes and duties had been paid thereon at the time of their auction. Octroi was indeed payable on such goods irrespective of the question whether they had been imported into the Municipal limit whether from abroad or from place outside such limits within Pakistan. Therefore, under no circumstances could the liability to pay octroi be avoided. In view of the above, we find no force in this petition and would dismiss the same. M.B.A./A-208/K Petition dismissed.