2010 PLP 777 (PTD)
MAROOF OIL COMPANY through Authorized Representative Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 2010 PLP 777 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Irfan Sadaat Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MAROOF OIL COMPANY through Authorized Representative Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 777 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 777 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Irfan Sadaat Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 777 (PTD) (MAROOF OIL COMPANY through Authorized Representative Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S.196---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.3---Review of judgment---Scope---Petitioner sought review of the judgment passed by High Court on the ground that he was not served with the notice fixing date of hearing---Validity---Review application which was filed in High Court in sales tax proceedings was not maintainable as Sales Tax Act, 1990, did not make provision giving jurisdiction to High Court to review its own order---Similar was the position in respect of Customs Act, 1969, and petitioner failed to show that there was any provision under which High Court could review its own order exercising jurisdiction under Customs Act, 1969---Review application was dismissed in circumstances.
- Yousaf Iqbal for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.
- We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. Though ,the petitioner has urged that it has not received notice of hearing of 11-3-2008 but the Court record shows that such a notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner counsel Mr. Shahzad Mazhar Advocate on 25-2-2008 which contains outward number 120 dated 26-2-2008. The notice was issued mentioning the same address which the petitioner Counsel has given in his Vakalatnama and notice was also issued to the petitioner's Counsel on the address previous to this date which appears to have been received by him as no complaint in this regard is made. It is stated in the review application that petitioner Counsel's office address was a changed from Suite No.228, 2nd Floor, Saddiq Plaza, The Malt, Lahore to Suite No.34 2nd Floor, Saddiq Plaza, The Mall, Lahore and perhaps for this reason the notice may have misplaced. The affidavit of the petitioner's counsel has not been filed to substantiate the fact that the petitioner counsel has changed his address. Even the fact about receipt and non-receipt of the notice which was addressed to the petitioner counsel could have been validly commented upon by the counsel only and for this reason the filing of his affidavit was necessary which, however, the petitioner has not done. Apparently, neither there is any valid ground for review of the order nor for condonation of delay. Be that as it may, in terms of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Collector of Sales Tax East Karachi relied upon, by the counsel for the respondent, we find that the review application which was filed in the High Court in a sales tax proceeding was held to be not maintainable as the Sales Tax Act did not make provision giving jurisdiction to the High Court to review its own order. Similar seems to be the position in respect to the Customs Act as the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that there is any provision under which the High Court can review its own order exercising the jurisdiction under the Customs Act.
Headnotes / Summary
Mst. Nigar Bibi v. Salahuddin Khan and others PLD 1990 SC 76 and Collector of Sales Tax East, Karachi v. Custom Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 2003 PTD 1477 ref.
Judgment & Decree
(1) to (3) Petitioner has sought review of the order dated 11-3-2008. Petitioner has also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of review application as the review application was filed much beyond the limitation period i.e. on 7-10-2008. The only ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the applications is that the petitioner was not served with the notice fixing the date of hearing on 11-3-2008. He has relied upon the case of Mst. Nigar Bibi v. Salahuddin Khan and others PLD 1990 SC
76. As against this Mr. Raja Muhammad counsel for the respondent has contended that no review can be filed as under the Customs Act no power of review is conferred upon the High Court to review its own order passed as an appellate forum exercising jurisdiction of Customs Act. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the case of Collector of Sales Tax East, Karachi v. Custom Excise and Sales- Tax Appellate Tribunal 2003 PTD 1477. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. Though ,the petitioner has urged that it has not received notice of hearing of 11-3-2008 but the Court record shows that such a notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner counsel Mr. Shahzad Mazhar Advocate on 25-2-2008 which contains outward number 120 dated 26-2-2008. The notice was issued mentioning the same address which the petitioner Counsel has given in his Vakalatnama and notice was also issued to the petitioner's Counsel on the address previous to this date which appears to have been received by him as no complaint in this regard is made. It is stated in the review application that petitioner Counsel's office address was a changed from Suite No.228, 2nd Floor, Saddiq Plaza, The Malt, Lahore to Suite No.34 2nd Floor, Saddiq Plaza, The Mall, Lahore and perhaps for this reason the notice may have misplaced. The affidavit of the petitioner's counsel has not been filed to substantiate the fact that the petitioner counsel has changed his address. Even the fact about receipt and non-receipt of the notice which was addressed to the petitioner counsel could have been validly commented upon by the counsel only and for this reason the filing of his affidavit was necessary which, however, the petitioner has not done. Apparently, neither there is any valid ground for review of the order nor for condonation of delay. Be that as it may, in terms of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Collector of Sales Tax East Karachi relied upon, by the counsel for the respondent, we find that the review application which was filed in the High Court in a sales tax proceeding was held to be not maintainable as the Sales Tax Act did not make provision giving jurisdiction to the High Court to review its own order. Similar seems to be the position in respect to the Customs Act as the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that there is any provision under which the High Court can review its own order exercising the jurisdiction under the Customs Act. Consequently, we find no merit in these applications which are also not maintainable and the same are therefore, dismissed. M.H./M-1/K Application dismissed.