Custom on mobile | The Supreme Court held that the Collector of Customs cannot levy levy on ordinary mobile phones as per the charging clause of the Finance Act, the levy is applicable only to smartphones, and cannot be extended to ordinary phones by a change in the table. . 2024 S C M R 457

The Supreme Court held that the Collector of Customs cannot levy levy on ordinary mobile phones as per the charging clause of the Finance Act, the levy is applicable only to smartphones, and cannot be extended to ordinary phones by a change in the table. .
2024 S C M R 457

اہم نکات:

1. پس منظر:

معاملہ موبائل ہینڈ سیٹ لیوی سے متعلق ہے جو فنانس ایکٹ 2018 کے تحت اسمارٹ فونز پر عائد کی گئی تھی۔

فنانس ایکٹ 2022 میں ٹیبل میں تبدیلی کی گئی جس سے کسٹم ڈیپارٹمنٹ نے عام موبائل فونز پر بھی یہ لیوی عائد کرنے کی کوشش کی۔

2. قانونی موقف:

چارجنگ سیکشن (سیکشن 10) لیوی کا اصل ماخذ ہے اور کسی شے پر لیوی عائد کرنے کا حق چارجنگ سیکشن میں ہوتا ہے، ٹیبل میں نہیں۔

ٹیبل صرف لیوی کی شرح کو بیان کرتی ہے اور چارجنگ سیکشن کے دائرہ کار سے باہر نہیں جا سکتی۔

3. فیصلہ:

سپریم کورٹ نے کہا کہ ٹیبل میں تبدیلی کرکے ایسی اشیاء پر لیوی عائد نہیں کی جا سکتی جو چارجنگ سیکشن میں شامل نہیں ہیں۔

ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ برقرار رکھا گیا، اور سپریم کورٹ نے پٹیشن کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے اپیل کی اجازت نہیں دی۔

4. قانونی اصول:

یہ فیصلہ فِسکل قوانین کی تشریح کے اصولوں کے مطابق ہے، جس میں واضح کیا گیا کہ لیوی کا نفاذ صرف چارجنگ سیکشن میں دی گئی اجازت تک محدود ہے۔

نتیجہ:

عام موبائل فونز پر لیوی عائد کرنے کا اختیار ٹیبل کی تبدیلی سے نہیں دیا جا سکتا جب تک کہ چارجنگ سیکشن میں واضح اجازت موجود نہ ہو۔

2024 S C M R 457

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Ijaz ul Ahsan, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and another---Petitioners

Versus

Messrs YOUNG TECH PRIVATE LIMITED and others---Respondents

Civil Petitions Nos.890-K to 909-K of 2023, decided on 22nd November, 2023.

(Against the Order dated 14.03.2023 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.Ps. Nos. 5389, 5245, 5004, 6120, 47, 361, 529, 530, 583, 5069, 5689, 6028, 7470, 7668, 7771 of 2021 and 241, 242, 474, 966 of 2023)

Finance Act (XXX of 2018)---

----S. 10 [as amended by the Finance Act (XIII of 2022)]---Mobile handset levy on imported phones---Levy on ordinary phones other than smart phones---Legality---Respondents had imported mobile phones and were aggrieved by the imposition of mobile handset levy under section 10 of the Finance Act, 2018 ("Act") on mobile phones that were admittedly not smart phones---Section 10 of the Act imposed mobile handset levy on smart phones supported by a table which gave categories of smart phones and the rates of levy per set---Subsequently in the Finance Act, 2022, the table of section 10 was amended and the amended table replaced the words "category of smart phone" with the words "Mobile Phones having C&F Value (US Dollars)"---Stance of the department was that by changing the table, it had been conferred the power to recover the said levy not only on the smart phones but also on the ordinary phone which did not fall in the category of smart phones---High Court came to the conclusion that without amending the charging section, i.e. section 10 and merely by amending the table, the levy could not be recovered---Validity---Right to recover any levy rests in the charging section and not in the table that specifies the rates at which such charge is to be recovered---Power to recover a levy is anchored in the charging section and the table is merely meant to prescribe the rates at which such levy is to be recovered on various goods/items---Unless the charging section confers a power to recover a levy on an article or class of goods, mere mention of a different class, types or category of goods clearly goes beyond the scope of the charging section---This cannot be done---Schedule/table is merely a supplement of the charging section and cannot go beyond it and create a new and altogether different levy on a different class of goods not mentioned or contemplated by the charging section---Impugned order of the High Court was in-line with settled principles of law on interpretation of fiscal statutes and tax laws---Petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Dr. Farhat Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court (in all cases) along with Ms. Ume Kalsoom, D.C. Law East Karachi and Nabeel Siraj, D.C. Customs (both via video link, Karachi) for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.