Regulation or Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act (XXIV of 1948)---

----S. 3-B & Sched. [as added by Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) (Amendment) Act (LXXX of 1976), Ss. 2 & 3J---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 14---C.B.R. Circular No. 18 of 1986, dated 21-10-1986---C.B.R. Letter No. 1-7-IT-V/77 dated 5-7-1979---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Exemption of assessee from payment of income-tax, under S. 3-B, Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948 was refused by the Income-tax Authorities---Constitutional petition---High Court with the consent of parties and with a view to avoid delay as case of one petitioner was still pending before Income Tax Authorities set aside order of refusal of exemption and remitted the cases of assessee for decision according to law.

Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner.

Muhammad I1yas Khan for Respondent

Date of hearing: 10th February, 1993.

JUDGMENT

CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J.--This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 404 of 1990 and 546 of 1986 inasmuch as in both the writ petitions common legal questions are required to be determined.

2. Grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that although the petitioners are entitled to the grant of exemption from payment of income tax in the light of provisions of section 3-B of Act LXXX of 1976 (Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) (Amendments) Act, 1976) read with Item No. 13 of the Schedule to the afore mentioned Act, the provisions of Act 26 of 1948, the provisions of Income Tax Act of 1922, provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 read with Circular issued by the CBR No. 1-17-IT-V/77, dated 5-7-1979, and Circular No. 18 dated 21-10-1986, the respondents have illegally refused the grant of exemption vide the orders impugned in these writ petitions, therefore, the said orders are illegal and without a lawful authority and, hence, the petitioners are entitled to issuance of writ or direction to the effect that the respondents should grant exemption to the petitioners in payment of Income Tax as per statutory provisions referred to above.

3. Mr. Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions and has addressed elaborate arguments on the question raised in these writ petitions supporting his arguments with a plethora of case-law in support of his contentions.

4. As against the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in Writ No. 404 of 1990 case of the petitioners Nos.l and 2 has been decided so far whereas the case of other petitioners in still pending adjudication with respondent No.l and, therefore, in order to avoid the piecemeal decision of the matter in issue, the respondents have no objection to the acceptance of both the writ petitions and setting aside of the impugned orders and remission of the cases of the petitioners to respondent No. 1 for decision thereof in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has accepted the offer made by the learned counsel for the respondents and has stated that in view of the apprehension of the petitioners that decision of the cases shall be delayed, the period of one month may be fixed for decision of the cases of ail the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the fixation of the period of one month for decision of the cases.

5. Resultantly, we accept both the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders and remit the cases of the petitioners which have been decided and direct that their cases as well as the cases of other petitioners which have not been decided as yet and which are pending adjudication shall be decided within a period of one month w.e.f. today. The assessment of income-tax as against the petitioners shall not be finalised till disposal of the cases by respondent No.l. It is observed, however, that in case the petitioners are not satisfied after the matter is finally decided by the respondents, they shall be at liberty to move this Court again. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

M.BA./S-338/L Order accordingly.