2013 PLP 1952 (PTD)
NAEEM TRADERS and others Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1952 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | NAEEM TRADERS and others Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1952 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1952 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1952 (PTD) (NAEEM TRADERS and others Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24-12-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Custom Reference Nos. 30 and 35 of 2009).
Ss. 196, 194C, 3A & 4
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 & 185(3)
Tax reference before High Court converted into writ petition and remanded for decision afresh
Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether in converting tax reference into writ petition and remanding the case for decision afresh the High Court had misconstrued the provisions of Ss. 194C, 3A & 4 of Customs Act, 1969; whether impugned judgment of the High Court had the effect of making said provisions of law redundant, and whether in absence of any question of law having been raised in the reference, could the same be entertained and converted into a writ petition.
Judgment & Decree
This judgment shall dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 410-L and 434-L of 2010 as the issue raised in both these petitions is similar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned High Court fell in error in not appreciating that the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal in terms of sections 3-A and 4 of the Customs Act, 1969 can constitute as many benches consisting of single Member as he may deem necessary to hear such cases and that subsection (4) of section 194-C specifically provides that the Chairman or any other Member of the Appellate Tribunal authorized in this behalf by the Chairman can signally dispose of a case which has been allotted to the bench of which he is a Member and this is subject to subsections 4(a) and (c) of section 194-C. Adds that the impugned judgment is likely to make the afore referred provisions of law redundant.
3. Learned counsel for the Customs Department who was on watching brief defended the impugned judgment. However, in all fairness on court query he could not controvert that the issue requires detailed arguments.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for the Customs Department, leave is granted inter alia to consider whether in converting the Tax References into Writ Petitions and remanding the case for decision afresh the learned High Court has misconstrued the provisions of sections 194-C, 3-A and 4 of the Customs Act; whether the impugned judgment has the effect of making the afore-referred provisions of law redundant and whether in absence of any question of law having been raised in the Reference, could the Reference be entertained and converted into a Writ Petition? MWA/N-12/SC Leave granted.