HASSAN ALI GRAINS (PVT.) LTD. and others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTANthrough Secretary M_o Finance and otherss
Civil appeals were instituted before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following a remand order in an earlier round of litigation (Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ashraf, PLD 1993 SC 176), wherein the High Court had been tasked with adjudicating a limited question. The core legal issue was whether the imposition and subsequent reduction of regulatory duty by the Government via notifications dated 07-04-1986 and 17-04-1986 amounted to a confiscatory exercise of State power violating fundamental rights to engage in trade and acquire property under Articles 18 and 23 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. On remand, a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court examined relevant domestic and comparative jurisprudence, concluding that the levy was not confiscatory. The Supreme Court concurred entirely with the High Court's findings and reasoning, holding that the regulatory duty did not constitute a confiscatory measure. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on merits, while certain connected appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of counsel.
- Whether the imposition and subsequent reduction of regulatory duty through governmental notifications amounted to a confiscatory exercise resulting in an unconstitutional deprivation of property?
- Whether a regulatory duty imposed by the State infringes the fundamental right to conduct a lawful trade, business, or occupation under Article 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Whether an appeal before the Supreme Court is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when neither the Advocate Supreme Court nor the Advocate-on-Record appears despite the matter being listed?
- Article 18, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
- Article 23, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
ORDER
' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---C.As. 1555 to 1570 of 2007:--- Neither 'the learned Advocate Supreme Court nor the Advocate-onRecord for the appellants has appeared in these cases dispite listing of their names in the cause list. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution.
C.As. 1553-1554 of 2007 and 170 of 2009:--- We have heard Mr. Zahid Ibrahim, learned counsel for the appellant in C.As. 1553-1554 of 2007 and Mirza Hafeez ur Rehman, learned counsel for the appellant in C.A. 170 of 2009 at some length and have also gone through the judgment of this Court reported as Government of Pakistan, etc. v. Muhammad Ashraf and others (PLD 1993 SC 176). The relevant part of the said judgment in particular has been seen whereby on a very limited question the Court remanded the case for adjudication by the High Court. The limited question was as to whether regulatory duty in these cases amounted to a confiscatory exercise by the State resulting in deprivation of the right to property and the right to engage in a lawful trade, business or occupation guaranteed under Articles 18 and 23 of the Constitution.
2. On remand, a learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court examined the aforesaid questions and it has, after examining case-law from our own jurisdiction as well as that of the Indian and Northern American jurisdictions, come to the conclusion that regulatory duty which was imposed by the government on 7-4-1986 and reduced on 17-4-1986 vide two notifications respectively dated 7-4-1986 and 17-4-1986, did not amount to a confiscatory levy. The reasoning of the impugned judgment appears in para 8 on wards and the facts relevant for the purpose of enabling the High Court to make an adjudication have also been noted in para 6 of the impugned judgment.
3. It is not necessary to reproduce the said reasoning or extracts from the impugned judgment and nor is, it necessary to repeat or regurgitate such reasoning because we are entirely in agreement with the same as well as the conclusion arrived at that the regulatory duty in question was not a confiscatory levy.
4. In view of the above discussion, these appeals, having no merit are dismissed.