Vires of notification
Vires of notification legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Petitioner companies assailed vires of Notification SRO No.583(I)/2017, dated 1-7-2017 on the plea that the same was issued in violation of the Constitution, as Federal Board of Revenue had brought variation in taxation
Validity
Authorities conceded that notification in question was hit by ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Mustafa Impex PLD 2016 SC 808
Verbiage of S.74-A of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was that it was never inserted to afford any protection to exercise of powers exercised by the Board with the approval of Federal Minister in charge
Notification in question could not be saved in reliance upon S.74-A of Sales Tax Act, 1990
High Court declared that Notification SRO No.583(I)/2017 dated 1-7-2017 was ultra vires and of no legal effect as the same was violative of the law illumined by Supreme Court in Mustafa Impex case PLD 2016 SC 808
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
To hold a notification as ulta vires it was imperative that violation of Rules of Business was claimed, pleaded and examined by the court and on finding of fact that the mandatory Rule (s) was violated court could declare the same as ultra vires.
"Vires of notification", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124961766
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Vires of notification"
2005 P L C 102
ABDUL RAHIM ASHRAF TRUST (REGISTERED) through Chairman, Faisalabad Versus PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION through Commissioner, Lahore and 2 others
Court: Lahore High Court2009 C L C 72
Mir GHULAM SARWAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, N.As. Gilgit and 4 others — Respondents
Court: Northern Areas Chief CourtP L D 1991 Karachi 372
MUKHTAR AHMED SHAIKH‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑‑R. 137 & Appendix `C', item No.ll‑‑‑Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XII of 1979), S.105(1)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Exemption from payment of octroi tax‑‑‑Government's power to grant such exemption assailed through Constitutional petition‑‑‑Competency and maintainability‑‑ Point raised in Constitutional petition was about the vires of Notification dated 14‑5‑1990 whereby Government had granted exemption from payment of octroi tax‑‑‑No enquiry into facts was called for decision of same ‑‑‑Pendency of suit filed by respondent, was no bar to the filing of Constitutional petition wherein vires of aforesaid Notification had been challenged‑‑‑Constitutional petition was also not liable to be dismissed on the ground that same related to contractual liability‑‑ Petitioner challenging vires of Notification dated 14‑5‑1990, having not come to Court with unclean hands, Constitutional petition was both competent and maintainable. p. 376 A2011 SCMR 472
KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Appellants Versus Syed IQBAL AHMED and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1989 M L D 3415
Mir ABDUL GHAFAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Karachi2003 P L C (C
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SOOMRO Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others
Court: Sindh High Court2021 C L C 699
SHAMSHER KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Advocate General, Peshawar and 3 others — Respondents
Court: PeshawarP L D 1998 Quetta 21
UCH POWER LIMITED, DISTRICT NASIRABAD, BALOCHISTAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad‑‑‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑‑‑Art. 114‑‑‑Doctrine of promissory estoppel ‑‑‑Limitations stated.‑‑ Estoppel.2009 P L C 13
MUHAMMAD MANWAR MUMTAZ Versus PAK ARAB REFINERY LIMITED (PARCO) through Managing Director and 6 others
Court: Lahore High Court2024 Y L R 2808
M/s R-SC Internet Services pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Assistant Manager and another — Petitioners Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Govt. and Rural Development Department and others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar