PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, CTO, LAHORE S

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

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE VS The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, CTO, LAHORE S. 3---Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), S. 12 & Preamble------Constitution of Pakistan , Art. 264---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6---Central Excise Act, 1944, repeal of---Federal Excise Act, 2005, enactment of---Saving clause in the Federal Excise Act, 2005 , absence of---Effect---Accrual of Central Excise Duty (CED) during the years of enactment of Central Excise Act, 1944, recovery of---Chargeability---Scope---Whether Central Excise Duty (CED) accrued during the years when Central Excise Act , 1944 (repealed enactment) ['CEA 1944'] was in force could be recovered under the provisions of Federal Excise Act, 2005 (repealing enactment) ['FEA 2005'], especially in absence of any saving clause in the FEA, 2005?---Contention of the appellant / taxpayer was that recovery of CED relating to prior tax periods through show cause under FEA, 2005 was absolutely illegal as the same could not be done in the absence of any saving clause in the FEA, 2005---Held: Notifications or orders under the repealed Act continued if not inconsistent with the new Act, unless expressly superseded---By application of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897, the repealing of CEA, 1944 by FEA, 2005 did not affect any liability incurred upon the appellant and notifications and orders issued under the repealed CEA, 1944 shall remain active and alive irrespective of its repeal through FEA, 2005 unless specifically rescinded---Provision of Art. 264 of the Constitution, provided that any legal proceedings may be instituted, continued or enforced under the repealed enactment as if the law had not been repealed---Thus, under the provisions of Art. 264 of the Constitution and S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the liability of CED incurred upon the appellant under the repealed CEA, 1944 was not affected by the enactment of repealing Act of 2005 even in the absence of any saving clause in the FEA, 2005---Initiation of proceedings for recovery of the CED incurred on the appellant under CEA, 1944 could be initiated even after the repealing of CEA, 1944 by FEA, 2005, but the same, by virtue of Art. 264 of the Constitution, had to be initiated under the provisions of repealed law (CEA, 1944) in a manner as if the law had not been repealed provided that other legal formalities were properly complied with.

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, CTO, LAHORE S — 2025 PTD 1681 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD