Find a Lawyer

PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN ISLAMABAD versus LUCKY CEMENT LTD., PESHAWAR

Sections 2 (17) and 4 (2) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) excise duty, inclusion of retail prices was declared by the High Court not to be part of retail price and excise duties on cement were declared. ? Cement was not obliged to pay such excise duties as part of the lower cement prices of the authorities. It was held that the provisions contained in Sections 4 (2) and 2 (17) of the Central Excise Act 1944 were misconstrued and ignored. Its true symbol, port and meaning, which resulted in serious corruption of justice, was that excise duty was included in retail price as imposed under section 4 (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which all Taxes and charges included which aspect escaped notice. That the retail price was not considered in its original context, which included excise duty, to respond to the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution without access to the relevant forums available under the provisions of the Excise Rules. Could not be done , And that the manufacturers could not be considered an aggrieved party because they collected duties from consumers that were collected in the public treasury and paid such duties to consumers, and thus under Article 199 of the Constitution by the High Court. Constitutional jurisdiction can be adopted. Supreme Court approves leave to consider privileges taken by authorities power of attorney advocate Piaro goth lawyer