2002 PLP 951 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR, SIALKOT and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 951 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR, SIALKOT and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Stamp Act (II of 1899)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 951 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Stamp Act (II of 1899)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 951 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 951 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR, SIALKOT and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- N.A. Butt for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th October, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.54‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Refund of stamp duty‑‑‑Petitioner purchased certain stamp papers for purpose of execution of sale deed‑‑‑Sale deed having not been effected on account of some litigation, petitioner approached the Authorities for refund of stamp duty, but Authorities dismissed his application without providing opportunity of hearing to him‑‑‑Order passed by Authorities without hearing petitioner, was illegal and void‑‑ Authorities were directed, to hear petitioner and pass fresh order qua application for refund of stamp duty.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.54‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Refund of stamp duty‑‑‑Petitioner purchased certain stamp papers for purpose of execution of sale deed‑‑‑Sale deed having not been effected on account of some litigation, petitioner approached the Authorities for refund of stamp duty, but Authorities dismissed his application without providing opportunity of hearing to him‑‑‑Order passed by Authorities without hearing petitioner, was illegal and void‑‑ Authorities were directed, to hear petitioner and pass fresh order qua application for refund of stamp duty. N.A. Butt for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, A.A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th October, 2001. The petitioner purchased certain stamp papers for the purpose of the execution of sale‑deed. It is contended that the sale‑deed could not be effected on account of some litigation thus the petitioner approached the respondents for the refund of stamp duty, but this has been declined through the impugned order dated 21‑3‑2000. It is mainly contended that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before the order was passed.
2. The learned A.A.‑G. has not been able to show, if the petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing, therefore, the order passed is illegal and void. Resultantly, by allowing this petition, the respondents are directed to hear the petitioner and to pass fresh orders qua the application for refund. The petitioner is directed to appear before the DOR, Sialkot, who is now incharge of the matter on 18‑10‑2001 alongwith a copy of this order. He shall decide the matter within one month. H.B.T./M‑1069/L Order accordingly.