MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MEMBER (CUSTOMS) CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD
2005 P T D 1823
[Karachi High Court]
Before Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, JJ
MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Versus
MEMBER (CUSTOMS) CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 3 others
Constitutional Petition No. D‑22 of 2005, decided on /01/.
st
April, 2005. Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 5‑‑‑Guiding instructions issued through a letter by Central Board of Revenue‑‑‑Binding force‑‑‑Internal correspondence of department in terms of such letter would not be binding upon its subordinates, who would be at liberty to follow or not to follow such instructions while dealing with assessment.
Sohail Muzaffar for Petitioner.
Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Faisal Arab for Respondent No.4.
ORDER
By this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the letter of Central Board of Revenue (Annexure "A" to the petitioner), which according to him, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 4, 8, 14 and, 18 of the Constitution.
On service of notice of this petition, parawise comments have been filed on behalf of respondents on 7‑2‑2005. In para 10 of the comments the respondents have stated as under:‑‑
"Copy of fax dated 11‑12‑2004 (Annex‑A) shows an internal correspondence of the department which cannot be treated an official notification or order. It was merely a suggestion from the Member Central Board of Revenue for comments from Collector (Appraisement). Board vide its letter, dated 30‑12‑2004 has maintained the Scrap Committee but discontinued permanent Member of Customs for a transparent examination."
Mr. Sohail Muzaffar, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that if the respondents are strict to their stand that annexure "A" is simply a departmental correspondence having no binding force on the other respondents then, he will be satisf'`6d with the disposal of this 'petition on that basis.
In our view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner, is just and reasonable. Accordingly, this petition is disposed. of with the observations that the ,internal correspondence of the department in terms of annexure "A" to this petition will have no A binding force on the subordinates of the respondent No. 1, therefore, respondent No.3 may follow or may not follow such guiding instructions while dealing, with the assessment case of the petitioner:
S.A.K./M‑216/KPetition dismissed