Pendency of inquiry

2023 PLC(CS) 1168 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Pensionary benefitRelease of pensionary benefitsPendency of inquiryScopePlaintiff filed a suit for a direction to the department to release his pension

Contention of department was that investigation in respect of the irregularities committed by plaintiff was underway, as such, his final liability could not be determined

Validity

Department had not brought anything on record to justify withholding or delaying service benefits to the plaintiff

Nothing had come on record which could be taken as sufficient cause to delay or keep a legitimate and legal right pending for an indefinite period, except that of pendency of an inquiry

Department had admitted the claim of the plaintiff to a certain extent

Suit of the plaintiff was decreed to the extent of the claim which was admitted by the department.

2014 PTD 582 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.186 & 202Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionDetention of goodsPendency of inquiryChange of addressUser identity, cancellation/blocking of

Petitioner was importer of goods from abroad who had dispute with customs authorities over one consignment and pending inquiry, authorities had also detained other consignments of the importer and blocked his user's identity

Validity

Authorities could detain such goods, in respect of which inquiry or investigation was pending and not the goods which had been or were being imported by a person

Subsequent imported goods belonging to same owner could only be detained once a fine or penalty had allegedly been imposed in respect of any other goods and the same remained unpaid

All subsequent imports could not be detained or withheld clearance on the premise that some inquiry or investigation was pending in respect of some other goods

Such action was not permitted under S. 186 of Customs Act, 1969

Authorities were only authorized to take action for issuance of a detention notice in terms of S. 202 of Customs Act, 1969, once the amount alleged to have been evaded was finally adjudicated and decided against a person

Procedure and mechanism provided in terms of S. 202 of Customs Act, 1969, was entirely independent of any action taken in terms of S. 186 of Customs Act, 1969

Change of address of importer was no ground for detention of goods, as change of addresses were not updated in record of Federal Board of Revenue due to a very difficult and cumbersome procedure

No notice for cancellation of user-ID or blocking name of importer was issued and all duties and taxes had been collected from importer despite the fact that allegedly his address was not correct

Consignments in question were unlawfully detained as provisions of S. 186 of Customs Act, 1969, did not empower the authorities to do so

Petition was allowed accordingly.