LIBERTY POWER LIMITED through Authorised Director Syed Ahmad Masood
The petitioner-company challenged the imposition of a 2% service charge on imported machinery for a thermal power project, levied under Section 18-B of the Customs Act, 1969. The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition in limine, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the issue of territorial jurisdiction regarding the interpretation of clause 4(B) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—inserted by P.O. No. 14 of 1985—was already pending adjudication in several identical cases before the Court. Finding that leave to appeal had been granted in those similar matters, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the present case as well, ordering that all related appeals be heard together. The Court also withdrew the interim relief previously granted to the petitioner.
- Does the High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging a levy imposed by an authority located outside its territorial limits?
- Is leave to appeal appropriate when the core legal question regarding constitutional jurisdiction is already pending in identical matters before the Supreme Court?
- Section 18-B, Customs Act 1969
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---The above petition is directed against the judgment of a Rawalpindi Bench, dated 27-11-1996, whereby Writ Petition No,1883 of 1996 filed by the petitioner- company was dismissed in limine.
2. The petitioner-company imported plant, equipment and machinery for setting up a Private Thermal Power Generation Project which according to the petitioner-company had been exempted from payment of customs duties etc. Vide S.R.O. No,279(1)/94. The petitioner-company's consignment as per bill of lading dated 9-10-1996 had arrived at Karachi Port and was awaiting clearance. It was submitted before the learned Judge in the High Court that respondent No,2 had levied service charges at the rate of 2%, vide notification dated 22-10-1996, issued under section 18- B of the Customs Act, 1969. It is the last-mentioned levy that was challenged by the petitioner- company in Writ Petition No,1883 of 1996. The learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground that the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, was devoid of territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, and that the matter lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh.
3. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting our attention to the precedents of this Court in: (1) Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Charsadda v. Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad (1997 SCM R 1874), (2) Gulistan Power Generations Ltd, 58 Main Boulevard, Gulberg, Lahore v. Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (Civil Petitions Nos.135 of 1996 and 115 to 118 Of 1996 decided on 26-3-1996) and (3) M/s. Olympia Power (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance etc. (Civil Petition No,264 of 1996, decided on 4-12-1997) maintained that in a number of identical cases leave has already been granted by this Court to put correct interpretation on clause 4(B) which had been inserted in Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by P.O. No,14 of 1985. In the last- mentioned case of this Court in M/s. Olympia Power (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance etc. (Civil Petition No,264 of 1996), the Bench comprising one of us (Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri J.) granted leave to appeal as follows:-- "In the identical matters leave has been granted in a number of cases including Constitutional Petitions Nos.213, 217, 219 of 1995, 135 and 115 to 118 of 1996. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted in this petition as well. All the appeals should be heard together at an early date."
4. Since the leave has already been granted in the identical matters, leave to appeal is granted in this petition as well. All the appeals should be heard together at an early date.
5. The interim relief granted in Chambers on 9-12-1996 is, however, withdrawn.