2019 PLP 1956 (PTD)
PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD., KARACHI Versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX and another
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1956 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, Munib Akhtar and Yahya Afridi, JJ |
| Parties | PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD., KARACHI Versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX and another |
| Primary Law | (a) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), (b) Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1956 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), (b) Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1956 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Munib Akhtar and Yahya Afridi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1956 (PTD) (PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD., KARACHI Versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Isaac Ali Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in all cases).
- Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Dr. Tariq Masood, Member Legal (FBR) for Respondents (in all cases).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 29.1.2009 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in R.As. Nos. 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 of 2009)
S. 3-B
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S. 34
Consignments meant for export sold locally within Pakistan
Imposition of additional tax and duty under S. 3-B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and S. 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990
Clear factual finding by the Tribunal provided a sound basis for the imposition of such additional tax and duty, which finding could not be assailed before the Supreme Court
Appeals were dismissed accordingly.
Art. 185
Such finding could not be assailed before the Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
The learned departmental fora below have decided against the appellant to hold that the clearance of petroleum products shipped from its depot(s) purportedly for export to Afghanistan without payment of duties and taxes was unjustified and unlawful because in fact the said consignments were diverted and sold locally within Pakistan. After issuance of show cause notice dated 29.11.2004 and commencement of recovery proceedings against the appellant, the amount of duties and taxes were deposited with the respondent tax authorities. The learned Tribunal has concluded in para 11 of its order dated 22.10.2007 that the commission of offence of diversion of the consignments to the local market was committed with the knowledge of the appellant thereby establishing the charge of tax fraud against the appellant. Liability to additional tax was therefore imposed in the said circumstances of the case and findings recorded thereon. Payment of the duties and tax dues on the consignments was delayed deliberately.
2. Learned counsel has sought to argue that the imposition of additional tax and additional duty under section 3-B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was uncalled for. There is, however, a clear factual finding by the learned Tribunal that provides a sound basis for the imposition of such tax. A finding of fact cannot be assailed before this Court. In any event, no question of law relating to the said liability was properly framed before the High Court. Learned counsel sought to rely on one of the questions referred by the Appellant in its Tax Reference filed by it before the learned High Court, however, in our view that question does not squarely assail the said finding nor does it constitute a question of law on the said finding of fact noted above. Accordingly, no such question can be raised before us.
3. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals are dismissed. MWA/P-7/SC Appeals dismissed.