Board of Revenue

2025 SCMR 1929 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 74, 179 & 224Extension of time limitBoard of RevenueJurisdiction

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal in favour of respondent / importer that time limits imposed by section 179(3) of Customs Act, 1969, were breached and extension in time granted by Federal Board of Revenue under section 179(4) of Customs Act, 1969

Validity

There is difference between a power of extension to allow doing of requisite act or thing within an "appropriate" time period on the one hand, and a power to extend a time-limit in "exceptional circumstances" on the other

Latter expression is more restricted than the former term

Power of the Board to grant an extension under section 179(4) of Customs Act, 1969, is much narrower and more circumscribed

Provision of section 74 of Customs Act, 1969, is a general provision, applying to "any" act or thing required to be done within a specified timeframe, whereas section 179(4) of Customs Act, 1969, moves within a much more circumscribed locus, relatable only to matters of adjudication within the four corners of the section itself

Power to extend a time-limit under section 179(4) of Customs Act, 1969, must be understood and applied while keeping in mind that timelines set out in section 179(3) of Customs Act, 1969, are mandatory and not directory

There was nothing on record that could indicate that there was a proper (or, indeed, any) consideration of the factors involved

Extension granted by the Board was an unlawful exercise of power conferred

Supreme Court was not persuaded from involving of large amount of taxes and duties, as if such a large amount was at stake it behooved the Collector to act speedily and had made his order in a timely manner, if that did not happen, then it was for the State to bear the burden and consequences of such tardiness

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

2015 SCMR 58 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 7(2), provisoWest Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.164Board of RevenueRevisional jurisdictionScope

Purported revisional jurisdiction exercised by Member Board of Revenue (Judicial) to annul/recall an earlier revisional order passed by Member Board of Revenue (Colonies)

Legality

Order passed by Member Board of Revenue (Judicial) was devoid of legal authority since S. 7(2) of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 barred revisional jurisdiction of the Board for adjudicating the correctness or validity of a revisional order passed by Single Member of the Board

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2012 PTD 581 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.134Appeal is Appellate TribunalMemorandum of Understanding between companies and Member, Federal Board of RevenueStatus

Matter relating to Memorandum of Understanding had neither been raised through the grounds of appeal nor it arose from the orders of the officers below, which were subject of appeal

Appellate Tribunal was not a proper forum to resolve the dispute arising out of Memorandum of Understanding

Such memorandum had no legal status as it had neither been codified as law by the legislative body nor had been notified by the subordinate legislation, rather it was a Memorandum of Understanding between the E&P Companies and Member Federal Board of Revenue.