COLLECTOR SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE L.T.U. VS QASIM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PAKISTAN LTD, 2008 PTD-SUPREME-COURT 858 (2008)

(On appeal from the judgment dated 27-9-2006 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Special Sales Tax Reference Application No.81. of 2006).

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---

----S.3(1-A)---Sindh Sales Tax Ordinance (VIII of 2000), S.3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Levy and payment of further sales tax---Counsel for petitioner had contended that the High Court had erred in holding that the provisions of S.3(1-A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, as it existed in 2001, would not be available to the government for charging/levying further tax and such could have been done only if S.3 of Sindh Sales Tax Ordinance, 2000 had specifically included provision of S.3(1-A) of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Counsel had further submitted that High Court had fallen in error in holding that the view/observation made by it was supported by five previous decisions; and submitted that all of them were distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances in the present case---Contentions advanced required thorough examination---Leave to appeal was granted for examination of said questions and any other allied or connected issue which could be found necessary to be considered at the time of final hearing.

Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for represented.

ORDER

SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.---We have heard Mr. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, learned A.S.C. for the petitioner. His contention is that the High Court has erred in holding that the provisions of section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the. "Act") as it existed in 2001 would not be available to the Government for charge/levying further tax and such could have been done only if section 3 of Sindh Sales Tax Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") had specifically included the provision of section 3(1A) of the Act. He further submitted that such. observation is absolutely contrary to the principles of Interpretation of Statutes according to which when a reference is made to a particular section then all parts thereof, that is to say subsections, clauses, provisos and explanations are included therein and it is not the requirement of law that each of them should be specifically mentioned. He also submitted that the High Court fell in error in holding that the view/observation made by it was supported by five previous decisions and submitted that all of them were distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The contentions advanced require thorough examination. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted inter alia for examination of the above questions and any other allied or connected issue which may be found necessary to be considered at the time of final hearing Office is directed to prepare the paper book on the present record with liberty to the parties to file further/additional documents on their behalf, if so desired.

H.B.T./C-1/SCLeave granted.