Summary: Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969)-- ----Ss. 2(s), 16, 156(1)(8)(89) & 157(2)--Smuggling of Iranic KV fruit--Seizetion of-- Confiscation of smuggled Irani KV fruit--Appeal--Allowed--Direction to released on payment of redemption fine--Report of chemical examiner--Chassis number of vehicle was tempered--No findings given by tribunal regarding tempered chassis number--Challenge to--Appellate tribunal has failed to discuss this important aspect of case that vehicle in question was sent to chemical examiner and chemical examination report submitted by chemical examiner is very much available on record opinion whereof reflects that present chassis number of vehicle in question is tampered after erasing original digits, but no findings with regard to above proposition of case was given by appellate tribunal--Reference partially allowed. ---- Background: The case involves the smuggling of Iranian KV fruit and the confiscation of a vehicle with a tampered chassis number. The Pakistan Coast Guard intercepted a Mazda truck on January 18, 2020, and seized 828 crates of Iranian fruit. The driver, Abdul Aziz, was unable to produce legal documentation for the goods, and the vehicle was confiscated under the Customs Act, 1969. A chemical examination revealed that the chassis number had been tampered with. The Additional Collector of Customs ordered the confiscation of both the smuggled fruit and the vehicle. The respondent filed an appeal before the Customs Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the release of the vehicle on payment of a 20% redemption fine. The Collector of Customs then challenged this decision in the High Court. ----- Issues: ----- 1)Whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal failed to address the tampering of the vehicle’s chassis number. ----- 2) Whether the release of the vehicle with only a 20% redemption fine was justified despite the tampering. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court found that the Customs Appellate Tribunal did not adequately discuss the issue of the tampered chassis number, which was a critical aspect of the case. The chemical examiner's report clearly indicated tampering, but the tribunal did not address this in its decision. The court partially allowed the reference, set aside the judgment of the tribunal, and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The appellate tribunal was directed to reconsider the facts, including the tampering of the chassis, and provide a full opportunity for both parties to be heard. ----- Citations/Precedents: Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969) Section 2(s): Defines "smuggling." Section 16: Prohibits the bringing of smuggled goods into Pakistan. Section 156(1), Clauses (8) & (89): Punishments for smuggling. Section 157(2): Deals with the confiscation of smuggled goods and vehicles used in the process.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Oracle Systems Pakistan (Private) Limited, challenged a Recovery Notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue under the Federal Excise Act, 2005, demanding payment of Rs. 1,947,153,365. The notice was based on alleged unpaid Federal Excise Duty (FED) related to franchise services and technical fees. The petitioner argued that the Recovery Notice and subsequent actions violated a previous stay order issued by the Islamabad High Court and contested the procedural legitimacy of the recovery. -----Issues: 1- Whether the issuance of the Recovery Notice violated the Islamabad High Court’s stay order. -----2- Whether the petitioner was entitled to prior notice before any coercive recovery action. -----3- Whether recovery proceedings should be delayed until an independent appellate decision from the Appellate Tribunal. -----4- Whether an alternative remedy for refund is sufficient for the petitioner. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Stay Order Violation: The court found that the Recovery Notice was issued in violation of the High Court's stay order, as it was served before the stipulated seven-day period following the communication of the appellate decision. --Lack of Notice: The court emphasized that procedural fairness required the respondent to notify the petitioner before initiating coercive recovery actions, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to fulfill the demand voluntarily. --Deferral until Independent Decision: The court upheld established legal precedent, indicating that tax recovery should await adjudication by an independent appellate forum, such as the Appellate Tribunal, especially when the assessed liability is disputed. --Alternative Remedy Insufficiency: The court rejected the adequacy of an alternative remedy through a refund process, asserting that such post-recovery remedies do not substitute for due process protections under the law. The petition was allowed, with the court declaring the Recovery Notice and related actions unlawful. The respondent was directed to return the funds collected from the petitioner’s bank account. -----Citations/Precedents: Pakistan LNG Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (2022 PTD 1763) Quaid e Azam Thermal Private Limited v. FBR (2020 PTD 165) Huawei Technologies Pakistan v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (2016 PTD 1799) Messrs Pakistan Oil Fields Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2016 PTD 1590) Z.N. Exports Private Limited v. Collector of Sales Tax (2003 PTD 1746)

Summary: Background: The Collector, Model Customs Collectorate of Gwadar, challenged the decision of the Customs Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the Additional Collector of Customs Quetta’s order that confiscated a vehicle (Mazda Truck) involved in smuggling Iranian diesel. The truck's chassis number was found to be tampered with, leading to its confiscation. The Customs Appellate Tribunal had directed the vehicle's release subject to a 20% redemption fine on its customs value, which was contested by the Collector. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal erred in releasing a vehicle with a tampered chassis number upon payment of a 20% redemption fine. -----2- Whether the vehicle with a tampered chassis number was rightly confiscated by the Additional Collector, as per customs law. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the vehicle was rightly confiscated by the Additional Collector, Quetta, as the forensic report confirmed that the chassis number was tampered with. The court emphasized that forensic reports in such matters should be given due consideration, and the vehicle was liable for outright confiscation under customs law. The Appellate Tribunal’s decision to release the vehicle upon payment of a redemption fine was a grave error, as it ignored the forensic report and customs regulations. As a result, the Customs Reference Application was allowed, and the Appellate Tribunal’s order was set aside. The original order of the Additional Collector Quetta, confiscating the vehicle, was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Chaudary Maqbool Ahmed v. Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax, Appellate Tribunal – Forensic reports regarding tampered chassis numbers are given due credence and must be properly challenged if contested. Noor Muhammad v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar – Goods and vehicles with tampered chassis numbers are liable for outright confiscation under the Customs Act.

Summary: Petitioenr has pruchased a lexus car from an owner after due delligence lateer when he visited ETO office the registration of vehicle be suspended, Seeks setting aside of suspension

Summary: Background: The appellant, a coach driver, was convicted by the Special Judge Customs, Lasbella, under Section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, for smuggling foreign goods including betel nuts, mixed cloth, padlocks, and other items. The coach driven by the appellant was intercepted during a routine patrol by the Pakistan Coast Guard. The trial court sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine. The appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds of procedural lapses and insufficient evidence. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution's failure to produce the smuggled goods and the coach in court constitutes a significant procedural lapse. -----2- Whether the absence of witnesses such as passengers or the conductor weakens the prosecution's case. -----3- Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt based on the prosecution's failure to meet the burden of proof. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the prosecution failed to present key evidence, such as the smuggled goods and the coach, during the trial. Additionally, no independent witnesses (e.g., passengers or the conductor) were brought forth by the prosecution. These deficiencies created serious doubts about the prosecution’s case. The court relied on the principle that any reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person entitles the accused to an acquittal. As a result, the conviction was overturned, and the appellant was acquitted, with the court granting him the benefit of doubt. -----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Pervaiz v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1345 – Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if there is a reasonable doubt about their guilt.

Summary: Tax/Excise Duty---the issue revolved around the constitutionality of a levy imposed by section 7 of the Punjab Finance Act, 2011. The appellants were various clubs and organizations, while the government of Punjab was the respondent. The appellants contested the validity of the levy, arguing that it amounted to double taxation as they were already subject to a sales tax on services under the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012. They claimed that being taxed twice for the same transactions was unconstitutional.The Lahore High Court had previously ruled in favor of the appellants, declaring section 7 of the Punjab Finance Act, 2011 ultra vires the Constitution. The High Court based its decision on the notion that the clubs were already paying a sales tax on services since 2012, and subjecting them to the additional levy would result in double taxation.Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the court rejected the High Court's reasoning. It emphasized that while there is a presumption against double taxation, it is not constitutionally impermissible. The court held that if the language of the statute clearly imposes a tax, even if it leads to double taxation, it should be enforced. In this case, the court noted that the levy imposed by section 7 was essentially a sales tax on services. The court also highlighted the presence of non-obstante clauses in the relevant sections of the statute, indicating the legislative intent to levy the tax despite other laws in place.The Supreme Court concluded that the levy imposed by section 7 of the Punjab Finance Act, 2011 was within the legislative competence of the Province and did not amount to double taxation in the legal sense. Therefore, the High Court's judgments were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The court directed that any outstanding amounts be paid by the appellants in four equal quarterly installments.

Summary: The dispute revolved around the medical officer, who was assessed for property tax related to a number of shops within the jurisdiction of the Excise & Taxation Office in Peshawar. Allegedly in default of the assessed amount, the petitioners executed a non-bailable warrant of arrest, claiming it was issued by a competent authority. The medical officer was taken into custody on a specific date and time while he was present at a particular location. This led to a series of events where he alleged mistreatment, wrongful confinement, and eventual release through the intervention of advocates.The medical officer sought a criminal case against the excise officials, but his request was declined. He filed a petition under a specific section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was initially declined by a Justice of Peace. Subsequently, a Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High Court issued an order directing the registration of a criminal case. This order was contested in the present petition.During the hearing, the petitioners argued that their actions were in compliance with the law and were intended to collect public revenue as per the command of law. They contended that the execution of the warrant fell within the legal framework and cited statutory immunity for their actions. The petitioners also claimed that the medical officer had not made any payment, justifying their pursuit of the defaulted amount.The respondent's defense was that the petitioners had abused their authority and acted improperly, leading to a violation of the medical officer's rights as a professional. The respondent contended that the actions of the petitioners were in breach of the law and the Constitution, warranting criminal proceedings.The court emphasized the importance of exercising state authority within the boundaries of the law and ensuring the rights and dignity of individuals. The court acknowledged that state functionaries must perform their duties with restraint and independence. It noted that despite differing viewpoints, the issuance of multiple notices for the recovery of property tax indicated the necessity of addressing factual controversies through alternate statutory remedies.Ultimately, the court converted the petition into an appeal, setting aside the impugned direction/order issued by the Peshawar High Court. The medical officer was granted the liberty to challenge the assessment's legality through proper legal channels and to pursue alternate remedies if advised.

Summary: Federal Excise Duty, CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973, Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011The impugned enactment is for area which formed part ofprovince i.e. Sindh hence for all intent and purposes Article 142(c) issignificant. It emphasized Provincial Assembly to legislate with respectto any matters not enumerated in the Federal Legislative List. Theimpugned Act whereby Serial No.6A was introduced to the First Scheduleforming part of Table-II is introduced through a Money Bill in terms ofArticle 73 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. No otherEntry of Part I of the Federal Legislative List could then be taken intoaccount as this was a money bill which is primarily covered from EntryNo.43 to 53 as routed through Article 73 of the Constitution of IslamicRepublic of Pakistan, 1973. The federation has already conceded and weare not required to deliberate on the point that for a tax to fall underthe said Federal Legislative List it must be covered by Entries No.43 to53. This, as claimed to be a sales tax/Federal Excise Duty, is apparentlycovered in terms of Entry 49 to the Fourth Schedule to the Constitutionof Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Thus, the 18th Amendmentexcludes the Federation by virtue of the Entry 49 from the competenceto legislate on the subject of services rendered in their province onaccount of SSTA, 2011 w.e.f. 01.07.2011.--It is neither in the competence of the federation to legislate after18th Amendment nor it relates to federation to invoke Entry No.58 of theFourth Schedule to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973. Similarly, Entry No.59, as relied upon by the respondents counsel,that these matters are incidental or ancillary to any matters enumeratedin this part, is also inconsequential as this cannot be invokedindependently unless a reciprocal entry is found within the competenceof federation. One may argue this Entry 59 may have a bridged withArticle 151 but we have already discussed non-application of Article 151.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973): ---Art. 142(a) & (c), Fourth Schedule--- Legislative Competence---Federal vs. Provincial Jurisdiction The Sindh Development and Maintenance of Infrastructure Cess, as enacted and amended, falls within the legislative competence of the Province under Article 142(c), provided it does not encroach upon exclusive Federal domains enumerated in the Fourth Schedule. Despite parallels with customs duties under Entry 43, the levy pertains to infrastructure maintenance and development within the Province, qualifying as a distinct provincial subject. (b) Taxation Laws: ---Nature of Levy--- Infrastructure Cess vs. Customs Duty The infrastructure cess imposed on imported goods is not a customs duty, even if calculated on an ad-valorem basis. The "pith and substance" doctrine was applied, establishing the levy as a provincial tax for infrastructure development rather than a federal customs duty under Entry 43, Federal Legislative List. (c) Judgments and Orders: ---Retrospective Application of Laws--- Validation of Previous Levies The Sindh Finance Act, 2017, made the infrastructure cess retrospectively applicable from July 1, 1994. The court upheld the retrospective effect but limited it to parties not covered under the judgment in Sanofi Aventis, deeming the earlier case a past and closed transaction. (d) Taxation Principles: ---Distinction Between Fee, Tax, and Cess--- Cess imposed for specific purposes, such as infrastructure development, does not require a direct quid pro quo. It differs from fees, which demand immediate and proportional services, and from taxes, which are general revenue measures. (e) Disposition: ---Judgment and Directions--- The first four versions of the law were declared inapplicable to petitioners who successfully litigated under Sanofi Aventis. The Sindh Finance Act, 2017, was upheld as valid and applicable retrospectively, barring petitioners in earlier cases. Bank guarantees furnished before December 27, 2006, were discharged, while those after this date were ordered to be encashed. Petitioners' consignments will continue to be released under existing arrangements for 90 days, ensuring no disruption during appeal periods. ----Cited Cases Sanofi Aventis Molasses Trading Quetta Textile Mills Ltd.

Summary: Facts: The Province of Punjab, through its Secretary of the Excise & Taxation Department, challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated February 19, 2019, which declared certain notifications related to the levy of export duty on goods manufactured by MBCL and consumed outside Punjab as ultra vires. The High Court found these notifications to violate the freedom of trade under Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan.----Issue(s):Whether Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is mandatory or directory.The consequences of non-compliance with Section 79 CPC.Whether exceptions exist to the general rule regarding the mandatory nature of Section 79 CPC.Holding: The Supreme Court held that Section 79 CPC is generally mandatory, but the misdescription of a party, in this case, does not render the suit unmaintainable. The Court can rectify such an error under its inherent powers.---Reasoning:The Court determined that the legislative intent behind Section 79 CPC is to ensure proper representation and defense of the government in legal proceedings. The usage of 'shall' in the provision usually indicates a mandatory nature, but other factors, including the purpose of the statute and the consequences of non-compliance, must also be considered.The Court found that the misdescription of the party as 'Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, through Secretary Excise & Taxation' instead of 'Province of Punjab through Secretary Excise & Taxation Department' was a mere technicality and not fatal to the case. The essential purpose of Section 79 CPC was still met as the government was effectively represented.The Court distinguished between misdescription and misjoinder of parties, noting that procedural defects that do not affect the essence of the case can be corrected, and should not obstruct the course of justice.Judgment: The petitions were converted into appeals and allowed. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Lahore High Court for decision on merits. The appellant was directed to file amended titles of the ICAs with proper description in conformity with Section 79 CPC and Article 174 of the Constitution.