| Case ID |
ffc98ae4-abbf-41d4-ae33-a85ce97b7d77 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 824 of 1992 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 11, 1999 |
| Hearing Date |
Aug 10, 1999 |
| Decision |
The writ petition is accepted, and the Government is asked to charge the fee at the rate of 2% ad valorem for the import licence, as per the notification dated 2nd May 1992. The Government is also directed to refund any extra amount charged at the rate of 6%, as it was not justified under the circumstances when the machinery was imported during the currency of the second notification. The decision emphasizes the principle of reasonableness and the need for equitable treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution. |
| Summary |
This case involved BIAFO INDUSTRIES challenging the imposition of a 6% ad valorem licence fee by the Federation of Pakistan under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. The matter arose when the industrial area of Hattar, where Biafo Industries was situated, was initially excluded from the definition of 'Rural Area' in a 1990 notification, resulting in a higher licence fee. However, a subsequent notification in 1992 redefined Hattar as a 'Rural Area,' reducing the fee to 2%. The court, presided over by ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J, ruled in favor of BIAFO INDUSTRIES, directing the government to apply the 2% fee retrospectively and refund the excess amount charged. The judgment underscored the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and equitable treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution, highlighting the importance of compliance with current notifications and ensuring that fees align with the services rendered. This decision is significant for businesses in rural areas, as it clarifies the distinction between taxes and fees, ensuring that charges correspond with services received. The case references several precedents, including Abdul Majid v. Province of East Pakistan, to emphasize the necessity for a quid pro quo in fee impositions. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN,
BIAFO INDUSTRIES
|
| Judges |
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J
|
| Lawyers |
Salman K. Cheema for Petitioner,
Chaudhri Afrasiab Khan, Standing Counsel for the Federal Government
|
| Petitioners |
BIAFO INDUSTRIES
|
| Respondents |
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
|
| Citations |
2000 SLD 1791,
2000 CLC 170
|
| Other Citations |
State v. Kromarek 52 NW 2d 713,
In re: Shurtz's Will 46 NW 2d 559,
Abdul Majid and another v. Province of East Pakistan and others PLD 1960 Dacca 502,
Australian's case 60 CLC 263,
Mahboob Yar Khan PLD 1975 Lah. 748,
Sh. Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1966 SC 388,
AIR 1963 SC 966,
Rahimullah Khan and 65 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1990 CLC 550,
The Indian Mica and Micanite Industries Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and others AIR 1971 SC 1182,
Ayaz Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1993 Lah. 194,
Noon Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Market Committee and others PLD 1989 SC 449,
Kewal Krishan v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1008
|
| Laws Involved |
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950
|
| Sections |
3
|