SPRINT OIL AND GAS SERVICES PAKISTAN FZC, ISLAMABAD vs OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (OGDCL), ISLAMA

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

SPRINT OIL AND GAS SERVICES PAKISTAN FZC, ISLAMABAD VS OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (OGDCL), ISLAMABAD art. 199---Provincial laws on sales tax on services---Constitutional jurisdiction of (Islamabad) High Court---Scope---Constitutional petition filed before the Islamabad High Court---Maintainability---Petitioner-company had carried out cementation works for Oil and Gas Development Company Limited ('OGDCL') under certain contracts and the subject dispute pertains to the sales tax paid by it on the said works--- When the contracts were entered into the requisite notifications, which commenced the imposition of sales tax on services, had not been issued under the four applicable provincial laws, i.e. Sindh Sales Tax on Services act, 2011, Punjab Sales Tax on Services act, 2011, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance act, 2013, and Balochistan Sales Tax on Services act, 2015---OGDCL refused to reimburse the sales tax paid by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court, because according to the petitioner its registered office is at Islamabad andthe contracts were also executed at Islamabad---In its petition the petitioner claimed that under the four applicable provincial laws OGDCL was liable to reimburse the sales tax paid by the petitioner on behalf of OGDCL---Validity---admittedly, the petitioner-company did not carry out any of the cementation works in the Islamabad Capital Territory, nor was the applicability and/or interpretation of a Federal law required, which may have required consideration by the Islamabad High Court---Islamabad High Court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction, and should not have entertained the writ petition filed by the petitioner on this ground alone---Furthermore Islamabad High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution could only be invoked when 'no other adequate remedy is provided by law'---In the instant case the petitioner had other adequate remedy, either by invoking the arbitration clause in the contracts or by filing a suit---Islamabad High Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner, and therefore the same was not maintainable---Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly.

SPRINT OIL AND GAS SERVICES PAKISTAN FZC, ISLAMABAD vs OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (OGDCL), ISLAMABAD art — 2024 PTD 221 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PTD