1996 PLP 1042 (CLC)
LIMITED, KARACHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1042 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Mirza and Agha Rafique Ahmad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | LIMITED, KARACHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary |
| Primary Law | Finance Act (VII of 1992)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1042 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Finance Act (VII of 1992)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1042 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Salahuddin Mirza and Agha Rafique Ahmad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1042 (CLC) (LIMITED, KARACHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui for Petitioner. Shaik Haider for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th August, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 & Fourth Sched.‑‑‑Vires of S. 15, Finance Act, 1992 and Federal Education Fee Scheme devised under it challenged on the touchstone of Federal Legislative List as also Concurrent Legislative List‑‑‑Even placing broadest possible interpretation on entries in Federal Legislative List as also in Concurrent Legislative List‑‑‑Federal Legislature had acted in excess of its authority in levying fee for the purpose of general education‑‑‑Such fee could only be levied for services rendered but it could not be imposed with a view to enhance general revenue of the State‑‑ Section 15, Finance Act, 1992 and Federal Education Fee Scheme devised under it and under Notification .dated 16‑2‑1993 were ultra vires of the Constitution. Nishat Tex Limited v. The Federation of Pakistan PLD 1994 Lah. 347; Sohail Jute Mills v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 329 and Ishat Tex Limited's case PLD 1994 Lah. 347 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, J.‑‑‑Federal Education Fee had been levied vide section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992 and the Income Tax Department had been nominated as the collecting agency for the said tax and the provisions of income Tax Ordinance, 1979 along with rules framed there under had been made applicable to the collection of the said Federal Education Fee. The contention of the petitioner is that section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992 and the Federal Education Fee levied there under and under SRO No.139(I)/93 dated 16‑2‑1993 are ultra vires of the Constitution of the country. It is argued by learned counsel of the petitioner that the Federal Legislature had acted in excess of its authority in levying fee for the purpose of general education by placing very broad interpretation on entries in the Federal Legislative List as well as in the Concurrent Legislative List and such fee could only be levied for services rendered and it could not be imposed with a view to enhance general revenue of the' State. Learned counsel, in support of his argument, has relied upon the judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case of Nishat Tex Limited v. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1994 Lahore 347) in which, on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sohail Jute Mills v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1991 SC 329), it was held that there was no escape from the conclusion that even on broadest possible interpretation of various entries, the Federal Legislature has acted in excess of its authority in levying the fee for the purpose of general education and that such fee can only be levied for the services rendered and it cannot be imposed with a view to enhance the general revenue of the State and on the basis of these observations the levy of Federal Education Fee was declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not controvert the arguments of learned counsel of the petitioner. There is no denying the fact t that the judgment in the case of Ishat Tex Limited (PLD 1994 Lahore 347) was not appealed against and challenged in the Supreme Court with the result that it has attained finality. Even though the judgment is of Single Bench, we are inclined to agree with it and, relying upon the same, we declare that section 15 of the Finance Act 1992 and the Federal Education Fee Scheme devised under it A and under SRO 139(1)/93 dated 16‑2‑1993 are ultra vires of the Constitution of the country. These are the reasons for the short order which was announced on the conclusion of the hearing in the earlier part of the day. A.A./M‑2164/K Petition accepted.