1989 PLP 1858 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1858 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Abdul Rasool Agha, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1858 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1858 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Abdul Rasool Agha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1858 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. A. Majid for Petitioner.
- Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Asstt. A: G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199--Constitutional petition was disposed of with consent of parties in terms agreed to by them.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
This petition was part heard by us on 3 11-1988 when it was adjourned at the request of the learned Assistant Advocate General to enable him to obtain instructions from the respondents ~'or its disposal by a consent order as on an identical point of law an appeal filed by the respondents before the Supreme Court is pending. The learned Assistant Advocate-General accordingly produced before us on 7-11-1988 a letter addressed to him by Director Excise and Taxation Karachi dated 6th November, 1988 when the above case came up for hearing. However, the statement made, in the letter was not acceptable to petitioner and as such further time was granted to him to seek further instructions in the case. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has now placed before us another letter dated 10th November, 1988 addressed to him by Director Excise and Taxation (Adorn) Karachi. In view of the statement contained in the above letter the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate General have agreed to the disposal of the petition in terms of the following consent order :-- (1) That respondent will not take any action to recover any amount of entertainment duty from the petitioner until the disposal of petition No. K-251 of 1979 pending before the Supreme Court. (2) That it is further agreed that in case the aforesaid petition is d--tided by the Supreme Court against the respondents the amount of entertainment duty amounting to Rs. 57,836.86 already recovered by the respondents from the petitioner shall be refunded to them. (3) That in order to ensure recovery of the entertainment duty from the petitioner in the event of decision of Petition No. 251 of 1979 by the Supreme Court in favour of respondent, the petitioner agrees to file monthly statement with regard to their income with the Director Excise and Taxation Karachi on the 5th of the following month until final decision of the Supreme Court. There will be no order as to costs. The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the consent order. H.B.T./M-734/K. Order accordingly.