PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

BAYER PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Member Board of Revenue Ss — 2022 MLD 1680 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2022 MLD 1680 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2022
Reporter
MLD
Parties
BAYER PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Member Board of Revenue Ss
Subject matter
Constitutional
Provisions referred to
S. 2; Sindh Finance Act; Stamp Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

BAYER PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Member Board of Revenue Ss.2(12) & 3 [as amended by Sindh Finance Act, 2020]---Instruments chargeable with duty---Electronic Purchase Orders---Execution of instrument---Scope---Dispute was with regard to charging of duty on Electronic Purchase Orders (EPO)---Validity---Electronic Purchase Order was not a document in the sense that the word was used in 2006 Adaptation (i.e. amendment made to definition of 'instrument' by S.2(14) of the Sindh Finance Act, 2016) and did not fall within the definition of an 'instrument' in terms thereof---Electronic Purchase Orders sought to be subjected to duty were not 'executed' in the sense of the term as per S.2(12) of Stamp Act, 1899---Amendments introduced by Sindh Finance Act, 2020 were designed to address those omissions in Stamp Act, 1899, as it stood at the time--- Electronic Purchase Orders as were generated during subsistence of 2006 Adaptation did not fall within the ambit and purview of Charging Section under that legislative framework on a reasonable interpretation of law and could not be inducted through a strained construction thereof, contrary to principles elucidated in judgments of superior Courts---High Court declared that EPOs generated prior to or during subsistence of 2006 Adaptation were not covered by the Charging Section so as to be chargeable with stamp duty--- Petitioners could approach the authorities for refund/adjustment of any sums paid in that regard---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English