1998 PLP 1342 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Forest Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another-‑‑Petitioners' Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1342 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Forest Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another-‑‑Petitioners' Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1342 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1342 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1342 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Forest Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another-‑‑Petitioners' Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Elahi Sheikh, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Mian Tariq Mahmood, Deputy Attorney‑General on Court's call for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st April, 1998..
- Altaf Elahi Sheikh, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Mian Tariq Mahmood, Deputy Attorney-General on Court's call for Respondents.
- 2. Sheikh Altaf Elahi, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab contends that the Forest Department, Government of Punjab, is not liable to pay the disputed payment of sales tax to the Federal Government, pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice dated 29-8-1987, issued by the Deputy Collector, Government of Pakistan, Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, inasmuch as, the articles in question belong to the Provincial Government whose property is exempt from all kinds of taxes under Article 165 of the Constitution.
- 4. The contentions raised by the Additional Advocate-General need consideration.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 1‑12‑1992 passed by learned respondent No.3 and affirmed in appeal and revision before the learned respondents Nos. 2 and 3 vide their orders dated 30‑10‑1993 and 6‑6‑1994 respectively). ‑‑‑‑Arts. 165 & 184(1)‑‑‑Sales tax‑‑‑Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court‑‑ Contention was that Forest Department of Government of Punjab was not liable to pay the payment of sales tax to the Federal Government, pursuant to the show‑cause notice issued by the Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise Government of Pakistan, inasmuch as the articles in question belonged to the Provincial Government whose property was exempt from all kinds of taxes under Art.165 of the Constitution‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Dispute raised in the proceedings being between the Government of Punjab and Federal Government, therefore, in terms of Art. 184(1) of the Constitution Supreme Court alone had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter‑‑‑Contention raised, thus, needed consideration.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
The dispute herein relates to levy of Sales Tax amounting to Rs1,29,058 on account of supplies of fuel and firewood.
2. Sheikh Altaf Elahi, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab contends that the Forest Department, Government of Punjab, is not liable to pay the disputed payment of sales tax to the Federal Government, pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice dated 29-8-1987, issued by the Deputy Collector, Government of Pakistan, Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, inasmuch as, the articles in question belong to the Provincial Government whose property is exempt from all kinds of taxes under Article 165 of the Constitution.
3. Clearly, the dispute raised in these proceedings, is between the Government of Punjab and the Federal Government, therefore, in terms of Article 184(1) of the Constitution this Court alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
4. The contentions raised by the Additional Advocate-General need consideration.
5. Admit. Notice. Meanwhile, the recovery of the disputed payment of sales tax is suspended till the final decision of the petition. M.B.A/P.15/S Leave granted.