Messrs PAKISTAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. and another vs COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and others
This matter concerns Civil Review Petitions filed against a Supreme Court judgment dated 15-4-2002, which had addressed the taxability of hotel services and liquor supply. The core legal question was whether the interpretation of the term 'General Public' as used in Section 2(28) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was correct, and whether the petitioners were required to register separately as retailers of liquor despite being registered for taxable hotel supplies. The Supreme Court, in its initial judgment, held that hotel services and liquor supply are distinct taxable activities requiring separate registration. Furthermore, the Court interpreted 'General Public' broadly, rejecting a narrow construction, and affirming that the term encompasses the public at large rather than being restricted. In the present review proceedings, the Court observed that the petitioners were merely seeking a rehearing of settled points already considered and repelled in the original judgment. Finding no error or new grounds warranting review, the Court dismissed the petitions, reiterating that review jurisdiction is not a mechanism for re-arguing the merits of a decided case.
- Are hotel services and the supply of liquor considered distinct taxable activities requiring separate registration under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- Does the term 'General Public' in Section 2(28) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, warrant a narrow or broad construction?
- Can a review petition be maintained if it merely seeks a rehearing of points already decided on merits in the original judgment?
- Section 2(28), Sales Tax Act 1990
ORDER
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C J.---This order will dispose of Civil Review Petitions Nos, 66 and 71 of 2002.
2. Civil Appeal No, 1587 of 1999 and Civil Petition No, 2564-L of 2000 were decided on merits by this Court vide judgment, dated 15-4-2002 and its paras Nos,11, 12 and 13 are as under:-- "(11) Plea raised on behalf of the respondents has no substance for the simple reason that making taxable supply as a hotel and supply of liquor are distinct and are to be treated as such. Nothing has been brought to our notice to substantiate the plea that once they were registered for making taxable supply as a hotel, they were not required to be registered for second time as retailers of liquor. So is permissible and can be done.
(12) This brings us to the main plea relating, to the term "General Public" appearing in section 2(28). Term "General Public" has been defined in Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Volume 18, Gabardine Gondola. It is as follows:-- General Public: The "general public" is not confined to citizens of a municipality but embraces all the people and is represented by the Legislature Rayor v. City of Cheyenne, 178 P. 2d 115, 116, 63, Wyo.
72".
(13) The spirit of above term is not to limit its scope, but to enhance it. There was no legal justification for a narrow construction of said term, as has been done by High Court. In the case reported as Goalundo Ice Association Ltd. v. Commissioners of the Rajabari Municipality (PLD 1952 Dacca 12), the word "public" as used in section 125(1)(b) of the Bengal Municipal Act was defined as "including every member of the public in general". In Chambers English Dictionary , the word "General" means "relating to genus or whole class: including various species: not special "not restrict or specialized" relating to the whole of to all or most."
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the words "General Public" have not been correctly interpreted. The review is not for rehearing the matter. The points raised in these review petitions were considered and repelled in the impugned judgment, as is reflected in the paras quoted above. No case for review is made out.
4. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed.