COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE And Others vs M/S. RIAZ BOTTLERS
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15.9.1999, which accepted the respondents' writ petition and declared certain departmental letters issued by the petitioners to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution could determine a question of fact regarding the fixation of retail price for tax recovery without the respondents exhausting statutory remedies. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the availability of adequate statutory remedies under the Central Excise Act, 1944 required detailed examination. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and issued notice on the stay application. The key principle laid down is that questions of fact relating to tax assessment and retail price determination ought to be addressed through available statutory remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.
- Whether the High Court can entertain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the fixation of retail price without exhausting statutory remedies under the Central Excise Act, 1944?
- Does the determination of retail price for the purpose of tax recovery constitute a question of fact that requires evidence?
- Whether an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Central Excise Act, 1944
- Section 35-B, Central Excise Act, 1944
- Section 36-C, Central Excise Act, 1944
ORDER
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.-- The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15.9.1999 whereby the learned Judge accepted Writ Petition No. 15188 of 1999 filed by respondents and declared the letters dated 12.6.1999 and 4.8.1999 issued by the petitioners as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge in Chambers failed to consider that the fixation of the retail price and its determination for the purpose of recovery of taxes, was a question of fact which could only be determined on the basis of the evidence, it is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution for seeking decision on a question of fact without exhausting the statutory remedies available under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), it is concluded that the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise impugned in the petition, was appealable under Section 35-B of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal and if the petitioner still felt dissatisfied, he could approach the High Court under Section 36-C of the Act. The contentions raised by the learned counsel require examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal in the case.
3. The petitioners have filed an application for grant of stay. Notice of this application be issued to the respondents for a date in office.