1990 PLP 516 (PTD)
HOECHST PHARMACEUTICAL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
| Citation | 1990 PLP 516 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | HOECHST PHARMACEUTICAL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 516 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 516 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 516 (PTD) (HOECHST PHARMACEUTICAL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kamal Azfar and Kazi Faez Isa for Petitioner.
- S.A. Wadood, D.A.G. for Respondent.
- Dates of hearing: 12th and 14th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Sales‑tax Act (III of 1951)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.3, 5 & 28‑‑‑Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1914), S.2(f)‑‑‑Sales Tax Circular No. 7 of 1981‑‑‑Import of foreign gas‑‑‑Petitioner imported foreign gas in completely manufactured state in big steel cylinders in bulk when sales tax on said import was duly paid at point of import by petitioner‑‑‑Said gas was sold to consumers by passing same into consumer's containers and property in gas of petitioner passed into consumer's containers‑‑‑Petitioner received a notice from Customs Department wherein it was alleged that decanting of imported gas into consumer's containers was a process of manufacture and petitioner was ordered to pay sales tax on alleged manufacturing with retrospective effect‑‑‑Notice was issued by Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Customs who was not a Sales Tax Officer in respect of goods in question and since petitioner had paid sales tax at time of importing gas therefore no recovery could be made at second time‑ Held. where tax had escaped assessment, power to issue notice and make assessment was with Sales Tax Officer and could be exercised by Assistant Collector of Customs & Central Excise who was empowered to do so and not by Deputy Collector, Customs and Central Excise‑‑‑Proceedings initiated by Deputy Collector were thus completely illegal and without jurisdiction‑‑‑Notice requiring petitioner to pay sales tax was set aside and Authority was directed to issue proper notice to petitioner and decide case according to law. (b) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. .S, 5 & 28‑‑‑Central Excises and Salt act (I of 1944), S.2(f)‑‑‑Sales Tax Circular No. 7 of 1981‑‑‑Deputy Collector of Customs Central Excise has been vested with the powers of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under the C.B.R. Circular No. 7 and Assistant Collector of Excise has been vested with the powers of Sales Tax Officer‑‑‑Deputy Collector Customs exercising powers of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under Circular No. 7 can therefore exercise powers as provided in S.28‑A of the Sales Tax Act viz. where proceedings are pending or assessment has been made by Sales Tax Officer‑‑ Power of issuing notice in escaped assessment vests in the Sales Tax Officer‑‑ Deputy Collector Customs thus could not issue the impugned notice.
Judgment & Decree
(2)
1. Collector of Cus‑ toms/Central Excise Commissioner of Sales Tax. 1‑A. Collector of Customs (Appeals) /Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Commissioner of Sales Tax (Revision) /Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax.
2. Deputy Collector of Customs/Central Excise. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax.
3. Assistant Collector of Customs/Central Excise. Sales Tax Officer.
2. The officers specified in column (2) shall have exclusive jurisdiction under the said Act with effect from Ist July, 1981. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Order the officers specified in subsection (1) of section 5 of the said Act shall continue to exercise the powers under the said Act in respect of all assessments (including collection of tax against demand raised in pursuance to such assessment), pending with such officers on the first day of July. 1981." By this circular the Customs and Central Excise authorities mentioned in the table were vested with exclusive jurisdiction under the Sales Tax Act to act as officers mentioned against their names. It is to be noted that by this circular Customs Authorities have been given exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. The Deputy Collector of Customs/Central Excise has been vested with the power to act as an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax while the Assistant Collector of Central Excise has been vested with the power to act as Sales Tax Officer. Therefore obviously the Deputy Collector of Customs/Central Excise cannot act as Sales Tax Officer. The power of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is mentioned in section 28‑A of the Sales Tax Act. He is empowered to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Sales Tax Act and can after notice to the assessee pass order enhancing or modifying assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing fresh assessment to be made. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax therefore exercises power only in cases where proceedings are pending or assessment has been made by the Sales Tax Officer. Reference can be made to Commissioner of Sales Tax Central Zone `A' Karachi v. A & B Food Industries Ltd. 1989 PTD. Under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act where for any reason any tax in any year has escaped assessment or has been under assessed or assessed at a low rate, the Sales Tax Officer may serve a notice and after making such inquiry as he considers necessary make assessment within the period provided by the Act. Thus in cases where any tax has escaped assessment power to issue notice and make assessment is vested in the Sales Tax Officer which power according to the aforesaid Circular No. 7 can be exercised by Assistant Collector of Custom/Central Excise. Such power cannot be exercised by Deputy Collector Customs/Central Excise. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondent was completely illegal and without jurisdiction. Similar view was taken in C.P. No. 366 of 1986 Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v Pakistan and others. We therefore declare that the notice and the order passed in persuance thereof are without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. The proper authority will however be entitled to, issue proper notice to the petitioner and decide the case according to law. M.Y.H./H‑195/K Case remanded.