2008 PLP 178 (SCMR)
FACTOR SUGAR MILLS LTD. — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY FOOD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 178 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mian Shakirullah Jan and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ |
| Parties | FACTOR SUGAR MILLS LTD. — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY FOOD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Sugar Cane (Development) Cess, Rules, 1964 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 178 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Sugar Cane (Development) Cess, Rules, 1964 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 178 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mian Shakirullah Jan and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 178 (SCMR) (FACTOR SUGAR MILLS LTD. — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY FOOD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Rr. 4(1) & 5(1)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Determination of quantum of cess---Show-cause notice issued to petitioner showed the allegation that sugar-cane cess had not been correctly worked out by the petitioner and that amount of cess paid by the petitioner was much less than the amount due---Commissioner vide separate orders determined amount of cess due from the petitioner with penalty---Appeal filed by petitioner against said orders before Secretary Food having been dismissed, petitioner filed constitutional petition, which also having been dismissed, it had filed petition for leave to appeal---Contention of petitioner was that it had been discriminated against because in the case of other sugar mills penalty had been imposed at 33% and the adjustment of the cess which had been paid to N.W.F.P. Government, had also been allowed, whereas such concession had not been given to the petitioner---Assistant Advocate-General had stated that after setting aside order of Cane Commissioner and the judgment of High Court petition be sent back to Cane Commissioner for the purpose of considering that aspect of the case in the light of judgments in case of other sugar mills---Counsel for petitioner accepted such arrangement and agreed for the remand of the case---Impugned order passed by the Cane Commissioner and impugned judgment of the High Court were set aside and case was remanded to Cane Commissioner for re-determination of quantum of cess, penalty as well as question of adjustment of the cess---Petitions were converted into appeals and disposed them accordingly.
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Mrs. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.-G., Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti, Cane Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and Khalid Mehmood, S.O. on behalf of Secretary Food, Punjab for Respondents.
- Muhammad Saeed Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. and Sanaullah Khan, D.F.C., D.I. Khan on Court Notice.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-11-2005 passed by Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.14773 and 14574 of 2003). Muhammad Saeed Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. and Sanaullah Khan, D.F.C., D.I. Khan on Court Notice.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
These petitions call in question the judgment dated 2nd November, 2005 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. Precisely, stating the facts of the case are that show cause notices dated 13-4-2002 and 7-2-2003 were issued to the petitioner under rules 4(1) and 5(1) of the Punjab sugar Cane (Development) Cess, Rules, 1964 by the Cane Commissioner, Punjab. It was alleged therein that Sugar Cane Cess (hereinafter called the cess) had not been correctly worked out by the petitioner and the amount of cess paid was much less than the amount due. The petitioner was called upon to show cause against determination of the Cess payable by the petitioner. The first notice was relatable to the years 1993-1994 and 2000-2001 while the second pertained to the period from 15-4-2002 and 30-4-2002.
3. The petitioner contested the notices and took up the position that it had paid the Cess to the N.-W.F.P. Government because the petitioner Sugar Mills is situated on the border of N.-W.F.P.-Punjab Province and that cane had been purchased from the N.-W.F.P. Province.
4. The explanation of the petitioner did not find favour with the Cane Commissioner and vide separate orders dated 8-3-2003 and 27-3-2003, he found that for the years 1993-1994 to 2000-2001, the amount of the Cess due from the petitioner was Rs.56,01,014.00 with the penalty of Rs.28,56,517.14 (total amounting to Rs.84,57,531.14), while for the period of 2002 the Cess due was Rs.9,1,537.13 and the penalty of Rs.46,683.94 (total amounting to Rs.1,38,221.07). A demand was, accordingly, raised against the petitioner.
5. Appeal against the above said orders filed by the petitioner before the Secretary, Food, Government of Punjab failed by dismissal thereof on 20th May, 2003. Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court but without any success as such listed petitions have been filed for leave to appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly admitted that the Tax was payable to the Punjab Government, however, as per the longstanding practice petitioner and so many other mill owners including Koh-i-Noor Mills Ltd. etc. had been paying Cess to the N.-W.F.P. Government. When we asked him to show any law in presence of a specific statutory provision and whether a practice would over-ride the statutory provisions, he conceded that there is no such law because it is well, recognized that there is no estoppel in law against the statute. He further argued that in these cases the petitioner has been discriminated against because in the case of Koh-i-Noor Sugar Mills Ltd. the penalty has been imposed @ 33% and the adjustment of the Cess which has been paid to the N.-W.F.P. Government has also been allowed, whereas such concession has not been given to the petitioner. On this A.A.-G., Punjab as well as N.-W.F.P. were called upon to explain as to whey they have been treating the petitioner discriminately. Learned A.A.-G., Punjab, under instruction from the Cane Commissioner, present in the Court, stated that for such reason on setting aside the judgment of the High Court and order of the Cane Commissioner and appellate order, listed petitions be sent bank to the Cane Commissioner for the purpose of considering this aspect of the case in the light of judgment, in favour of Koh-i-Noor Mills Ltd. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepted the arrangement and agreed for the remand of the case.
7. As a result of above discussion the impugned judgment passed by the Cane Commissioner appellate forum and the impugned judgment of the High Court, are set aside. Cases are remanded to the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, for re-determination of quantum of Cess, penalty as well as the question of adjustment of the Cess which they have already paid to the Government of N.-W.F.P.
8. Thus for the foregoing reasons, petitions are converted into appeals and disposed of, accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./F-15/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.