1986 PLP 2093 (MLD)
DRILCO Ltd.‑‑Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2093 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Saeed‑ur‑Rehman, J |
| Parties | DRILCO Ltd.‑‑Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2093 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2093 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saeed‑ur‑Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2093 (MLD) (DRILCO Ltd.‑‑Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Question of fact, determined by authority‑‑Reopening in constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Question of fact determined by Authority below, held, could not be reopened in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Principle of natural justice, violation of‑‑Parawise comments received from respondent clearly showed that not only petitioner was issued show‑cause notice but once case was adjourned at petitioner's request‑‑If petitioner did not choose to attend the hearing, it could not be held, that he was condemned unheard.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Principle of natural justice, violation of‑‑Parawise comments received from respondent clearly showed that not only petitioner was issued show‑cause notice but once case was adjourned at petitioner's request‑‑If petitioner did not choose to attend the hearing, it could not be held, that he was condemned unheard. Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against the order, dated 24‑6‑1979 of the Central Board of Revenue (Annexure H) whereby, they have imposed a penalty of rupees five lacs on the petitioner.
2. The sole controversy before the respondents was whether the rig in question was old or new. If it was a new as claimed by the petitioner, it was not subject to duty but if it was old as found by the respondent it was liable to duty. The legal position is not controverted by the petitioner but what he disputed is that the rig was in fact old. This was a disputed question of fact which has been determined by the respondent and cannot be reopened in these proceedings. It is to be noticed that at the initial stage the Managing Director of the petitioner company accepted the position that the rig was old one.
3. It is next contended that the petitioner was condemned unheard. According to the parawise comments received from the respondent, not only he was issued a show‑cause notice but the case was once adjourned it his request. If he did not choose to attend the hearing, it cannot be said that he was not afforded an adequate opportunity.
4. The petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T. Petition dismissed.