1989 PLP 561 (PTD)
Messrs M. SHAH MUHAMMAD & SONS Versus PAKISTAN and 2 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP 561 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs M. SHAH MUHAMMAD & SONS Versus PAKISTAN and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Sales tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 561 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sales tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 561 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 561 (PTD) (Messrs M. SHAH MUHAMMAD & SONS Versus PAKISTAN and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Advocate (absent) and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1988.
- "The points raised by the learned counsel for petitioner regarding measurement etc, involve disputed questions of fact which require the recording of evidence which is not the normal function of this Court. There is no grievance of mala fides on the part of the Department. The samples were taken in the presence of the representative of the Department, and consignment treated as wire after chemical test and physical measurement, and the points, primarily disputed questions of fact, have been duly considered and rejected by the authorities, which had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. No such jurisdictional defect or error of law has been pointed out which should persuade me to exercise my Constitutional jurisdiction. The principle stated in Muhammad Hussain Munir's case P L D 1971 S C 139 is aptly applicable."
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment arid order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30-1?.-1980 in W.P.No.7604/1979).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 185 (3)--Assessment of sales tax--Legality of--Consignment treated as "strips" by assessee was in reality, that of "wire"--Factual controversy as to nature of consignment stood concluded by finding of fact--Assessee's contention that tests conducted in respect of consignment could not be relied upon because Assessee was not associated with performance of those tests, repelled--Assessee did not contend that samples of commodities were not taken within its knowledge or without notice to it--That being so, and no defect having been discovered with regard to tests, no case was made out by assessees for grant of leave to appeal--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J,--Leave to appeal has been sought by a firm an assessee of sales tax, against the dismissal of its writ petition by the High Court. The case stands concluded by a finding of fact that what the petitioners treated as a consignment of "strips" was .n reality held to be that of "wire". The factual controversy raised before the High Court was resolved as follows:- "The points raised by the learned counsel for petitioner regarding measurement etc, involve disputed questions of fact which require the recording of evidence which is not the normal function of this Court. There is no grievance of mala fides on the part of the Department. The samples were taken in the presence of the representative of the Department, and consignment treated as wire after chemical test and physical measurement, and the points, primarily disputed questions of fact, have been duly considered and rejected by the authorities, which had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. No such jurisdictional defect or error of law has been pointed out which should persuade me to exercise my Constitutional jurisdiction. The principle stated in Muhammad Hussain Munir's case P L D 1971 S C 139 is aptly applicable." Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the tests conducted by the Landhi Small Tools Factory could not be relied upon because the petitioners were not associated in the performance of those tests. We do not agree with him. It is not the case of the petitioners that the samples of the commodities were not taken within their knowledge or without notice to them. That being so and no defect having been discovered with regard to the tests, the argument has no force. No other point has been urged. Leave to appeal is refused. AA./M-727/S Leave refused.