SURFACTANT CHEMICAL COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Isla

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

SURFACTANT CHEMICAL COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad S. 19---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Sixth Sched., Cl. 133---Notifications SRO 65(I)/2006 dated 05-06-2006 and SRO 474(I)/2016 dated 27-06-2016---Tax exemption---Two HS Codes---Applicability---Petitioner / importer claimed exemption from levy of customs duty in terms of SRO 565(I)/2006 dated 05-06-2006 duly amended vide SRO 474(I)/2016 dated 27-06-2016, as goods imported were fully covered by the exemption as per column No.3 of Table at serial No.3 of amending SRO 474(I)/2016 dated 27-06-2016---Plea raised by petitioner / importer was that two HS Codes were available at serial No. 3 of Table to SRO 474(I)/2016 dated 27-06-2016 therefore, it qualified for such exemption or zero rating of duties---Validity---Provision of Cl. 133 of Sixth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990, was not pari materia with the entry at serial No.3 of Table to SRO 474(I)/2016 dated 27-06-2016---There was no restriction under Cl. 133 of Sixth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990, that manufacturer or formulator was to be approved or recognized by Ministry of National Food Security and Research; rather it was the product i.e. pesticides and active ingredients, which were required to be registered by Department of Plant Protection under Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971, including stabilizers, emulsifiers and solvents, namely, other surface active agents and non-ionic surface active agents---Petitioner / importer was claiming certain exemption and the principle relating to proper interpretation and application of exemption clauses in fiscal legislation were well settled that onus was upon taxpayer to show that his case had come within the exemption; and if two reasonable interpretations were possible, the one against taxpayer would be adopted---Petitioner / importer failed to fulfil condition as provided in column No.(2) against serial No.3 of SRO 474(I)/2016 dated 27-06-2016, including production of recognition and approval from Ministry of National Food Security and Research---High Court declined to interfere in the matter---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

SURFACTANT CHEMICAL COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad S — 2025 PTD 10 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD