Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
1971 S C M R 221
Present : Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Sajjad Ahmad and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ
COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD.‑Petitioner
versus
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS, SARGODHA AND 3 OTHERS --Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 18 of 1971, decided on 17th February 1971.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Lahore, dated the 13th November 1970, in Writ Petition No. 1671 of 19 70).
Constitution of Pakistan (1962),
Art. 98‑Other remedy open-- Person failing to file appeal under S. 35 or revision under S. 36 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 Precluded from approaching High Court in writ jurisdiction‑Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), Ss. 35 & 36‑Central Excises Rules, 1944, r. 12.
Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 17th February 1971.
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑
Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Khan, appearing in support of the petition for leave to appeal, states that the High Court has since passed an order in another similar case granting the relief which the petitioner claims in this case, namely, that the petitioner is entitled to deduct duty on cotton fabrics exported by him from the monthly instalment of capacity duty payable under rule 12 of the Central Excises Rules, 1944, read with rule 8(3) of the Capacity Rules. The learned counsel, therefore, hopes that the same relief may be granted to the petitioner by the Central Board of Revenue.
We also find that the petitioner had not filed an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue from the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Sargodha, as provided in section 35 of the Central Excises Act, 1944. He had a further right to move a revision petition before the Central Government under section 36, but neither remedy was availed of by him. In view of this omission, the petitioner was, in our opinion, precluded from approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction which was tantamount to bye‑passing the jurisdiction conferred by law on the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the observations that the petitioner should in the first instance seek his remedy, if any, before the Central Board of Revenue.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer