COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE and others vs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.)
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declared certain departmental letters regarding tax recovery as without lawful authority. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the High Court erred in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to resolve a disputed question of fact concerning the determination of retail price for tax purposes, particularly when the respondent had failed to exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the Central Excises Act, 1944. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitioners' contentions regarding the impropriety of bypassing the statutory appellate hierarchy—specifically the appeal process before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35-B and subsequent reference to the High Court under Section 36-C of the Central Excises Act, 1944—required detailed examination. The Court's decision to grant leave signifies that the propriety of invoking constitutional jurisdiction in the presence of an adequate alternative statutory remedy is a substantial question of law requiring further adjudication.
- Can a party invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to resolve a disputed question of fact when statutory remedies remain unexhausted?
- Is the determination of retail price for tax recovery purposes a question of fact that requires evidence rather than summary adjudication in writ proceedings?
- Does the availability of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the Central Excises Act 1944 preclude a party from seeking relief under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 35-B, Central Excises Act 1944
- Section 36-C, Central Excises Act 1944
ORDER
' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.---The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15-9-1999 whereby the learned Judge accepted Writ Petition N 3.15188 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 the recovery of taxes was a question or 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 respondent 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 Excises Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). It is contended 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 respondents 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 .
' The petitioners have filed an application for grant of stay. Notice of this application be issued to the respondents for a date in office.