ATTOCK REFINERY LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Legislative enactment

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

ATTOCK REFINERY LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Legislative enactment---Power to strike down / declare void a legislative enactment---Guidelines and principles (i) There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality and a law must not be declared unconstitutional unless the statute is placed next to the Constitution and no way can be found in reconciling the two; (ii) Where more than one interpretation is possible, one of which would make the law valid and the other void, the Court must prefer the interpretation which favours validity; (iii) a statute must never be declared unconstitutional unless its invalidity is beyond reasonable doubt; a reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the statute being valid; (iv) If a case can be decided on other or narrower grounds, the Court will abstain from deciding the constitutional question; (v) The Court will not decide a larger constitutional question than is necessary for the determination of the case; (vi) The Court will not declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the spirit of the Constitution unless it also violates the letter of the Constitution; (vii) The Court is not concerned with the wisdom or prudence of the legislation but only with its constitutionality; (viii) The Court will not strike down statutes on principles of republican or democratic government unless those principles are placed beyond legislative encroachment by the Constitution; (ix) Mala fides will not be attributed to the legislature. Citation Name: 2025 PTD 789 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ATTOCK REFINERY LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN S. 31(a)---Sales Tax (VII of 1990), Ss. 6(1) & 6(1)(a)---Constitution of Pakistan, art. 199---Striking down of a legislative enactment sought---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, to strike down a legislative enactment---Scope---Vires of S. 31(a) of the Customs act, 1969 and Ss. 6(1) & 6(1)(a) of the Sales Tax act, 1990 ('the vires under-challenge') were challenged by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, however, Single Judge (of the High Court), instead of deciding the vires-under-challenge, referred the matter to the respondents (Collector of Customs)---Plea of the appellant was that the respondents /Collectors of Customs had no jurisdiction to interfere with vires of law---Validity---By way of impugned order that the Single Judge in Chamber, instead of deciding the vires under challenge, referred the matter to the respondents (Collector of Customs) who had no jurisdiction to interfere with vires of law---Where any orders or judgments are passed by any Court or authority who has no jurisdiction or is barred to exercise such jurisdiction, such orders or judgments are deemed to have been passed illegally and in such circumstances the High Courts are justified in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to rectify the same---In the present matter, Single Judge of the High Court, instead of deciding vires under challenge in light of the guidelines / principles to strike down or to declare void a legislative enactment, referred the matter to the respondents (Collectors of Customs), who had no jurisdiction or authority to interpret the vires of any law which was the core function of the higher Courts---High Court set-aside the impugned order ; consequently, constitutional petition would be deemed to be pending before the Single Judge and was to be decided afresh as per law---Intra Court appeal was allowed accordingly.

ATTOCK REFINERY LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Legislative enactment — 2025 PTD 789 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD