PROVINCE OF SINDH and others vs Messrs CRESCENT BOARD LIMITED, KARACHI
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Province of Sindh against an order of the Sindh High Court, which had allowed the respondent's writ petition regarding the levy of excise duty on Methanol. The core legal question concerned whether Methanol could be classified as 'liquor' under the Abkari Act, 1878, pursuant to a notification issued by the Government of Sindh on 14-2-2002. The petitioner argued that the issue was substantially similar to matters already pending before the Supreme Court in other petitions where leave to appeal had previously been granted. The Supreme Court, observing the rule of consistency, held that it was appropriate to grant leave to appeal in the present case as well. The Court ordered that the instant appeal be clubbed with the earlier set of appeals and listed for an early hearing. The judgment establishes the procedural principle that where a legal question is identical or substantially similar to issues pending in other petitions where leave has been granted, the Court will maintain consistency by granting leave to appeal and consolidating the matters for hearing.
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to maintain consistency when similar legal questions are pending in other matters?
- Does the classification of Methanol as liquor under the Abkari Act, 1878, warrant appellate review by the Supreme Court?
- Abkari Act, 1878
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---This petition is directed against order of Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, dated 25-8-2004, allowing respondent's writ petition following the law laid down in the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court delivered in C.P. No,1296 of 1990 decided on 24-11- 1993.
2. Question involved in this petition relates to the levy of excise duty on Methanol, which has been declared to be liquor within the meaning of the term used in Abkari, Act, 1878 by a Notification of the Government of Sindh, dated 14-2-2002.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General points out that the question involved in this petition is almost the same as involved in C.P.L.A..Nos. 266-K and 267-K of 2003., in which leave to appeal has been granted by this Court vide order, dated 12-6-2003.
4. The submission made is controverted by the other side, with slight distinction in the nature of duty. However, following the rule of consistency, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal in this petition as well with the direction that the office shall take steps for clubbing this appeal with the earlier set of appeals and also list them for hearing at an early date as directed in the earlier leave grant order. Order accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.