2015 PLP 957 (SCMR)
HASSAN ALI GRAINS (PVT.) LTD. and others — Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Finance and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 957 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, Sh. Azmat Saeed and Mushir Alam, JJ |
| Parties | HASSAN ALI GRAINS (PVT.) LTD. and others — Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Finance and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 957 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 957 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Sh. Azmat Saeed and Mushir Alam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 957 (SCMR) (HASSAN ALI GRAINS (PVT.) LTD. and others — Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Finance and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Ibrahim, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. 1553 - 1554 of 2007).
- Mirza Hafeez-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. 170 of 2009).
- Nemo for Appellants (in other appeals).
- Date of hearing: 6th April, 2015.
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Babar Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for F.B.R.
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for F.B.R. (in all cased except C.A. 170 of 2009).
- Muhammad Naeem Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court for F.B.R. (in C.A. 170 of 2009).
- JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---C.As. 1555 to 1570 of 2007:---Neither the learned Advocate Supreme Court nor the Advocate-on-Record for the appellants has appeared in these cases dispite listing of their names in the cause list. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 15-2-2007 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-415/86, D-542/86, D-431/86, D-564/86, D-439/86, D-364/86, D-429/86, D-491/86, D-389/86, 395/86, 391/86, D-436/86, D-437/86, D-579/86, D-432/86, D-576/86, D-515/86 and D-516 of 1986)
S. 18D
Levy of fee and service charges
Scope
Regulatory duty imposed by Federal Government
Regulatory duty which was imposed by government on 7-4-1986 and reduced on 17-4-1986 vide two notifications dated 7-4-1986 and 17-4-1986 respectively did not amount to a confiscatory levy
Appeal was dismissed. Government of Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Ashraf and others PLD 1993 SC 176 ref. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, DAG and Saleem Shahzad, S.O. M/o Finance for the Federation. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Babar Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for F.B.R. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for F.B.R. (in all cased except C.A. 170 of 2009). Muhammad Naeem Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court for F.B.R. (in C.A. 170 of 2009).
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
C.As. 1555 to 1570 of 2007:
Neither the learned Advocate Supreme Court nor the Advocate-on-Record for the appellants has appeared in these cases dispite listing of their names in the cause list. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution. C.As. 1553-1554 of 2007 and 170 of 2009:
We have heard Mr. Zahid Ibrahim, learned counsel for the appellant in C.As. 1553-1554 of 2007 and Mirza Hafeez ur Rehman, learned counsel for the appellant in C.A. 170 of 2009 at some length and have also gone through the judgment of this Court reported as Government of Pakistan, etc. v. Muhammad Ashraf and others (PLD 1993 SC 176). The relevant part of the said judgment in particular has been seen whereby on a very limited question the Court remanded the case for adjudication by the High Court. The limited question was as to whether regulatory duty in these cases amounted to a confiscatory exercise by the State resulting in deprivation of the right to property and the right to engage in a lawful trade, business or occupation guaranteed under Articles 18 and 23 of the Constitution.
2. On remand, a learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court examined the aforesaid questions and it has, after examining case-law from our own jurisdiction as well as that of the Indian and Northern American jurisdictions, come to the conclusion that regulatory duty which was imposed by the government on 7-4-1986 and reduced on 17-4-1986 vide two notifications respectively dated 7-4-1986 and 17-4-1986, did not amount to a confiscatory levy. The reasoning of the impugned judgment appears in para 8 onwards and the facts relevant for the purpose of enabling the High Court to make an adjudication have also been noted in para 6 of the impugned judgment.
3. It is not necessary to reproduce the said reasoning or extracts from the impugned judgment and nor is, it necessary to repeat or regurgitate such reasoning because we are entirely in agreement with the same as well as the conclusion arrived at that the regulatory duty in question was not a confiscatory levy.
4. In view of the above discussion, these appeals, having no merit, are dismissed. MH/H-1/SC Appeals dismissed.