Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---

----S. 7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Sales Tax Exemption Certificate---Entitlement---Consignments of imported pesticides were exclusively to be used for purposes of plant protection---Petitioner claimed that such pesticides were not liable for any sales tax and obtaining of due exemption certificate was a right of petitioner---Consignment in question stood released to petitioner, upon furnishing Bank guarantees, pursuant to interim orders' passed by the Court---Parties agreed that goods having already been released, under the orders of Court, on basis of Bank guarantees provided by the petitioners, Constitutional petitions could be disposed of by observing that official concerned might be approached by petitioner for appropriate adjudication according to law in the context of exempt claimed from sales tax by petitioner---Petitioner, however, would be free to question the findings of official concerned, if aggrieved by the same in appropriate higher forums, inclusive of re-approaching High Court m its -Constitutional jurisdiction, if so advised---Till the decision by way of adjudication by official concerned, Bank guarantees would remain in force and would not be encashed---Any collateral action by officials pursuant to said adjudication, however, would not be precluded, for the goods were released only by way of interim measure in the Constitutional petitions and would abide the result of appropriate adjudication.

Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ashraf PLD 1993 SC 176 ref.

Aziz A. Shaikh for Petitioner.

Ikram Ahmed Ansari, Dy. A.-G. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th April, 1993.

JUDGMENT

WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---These petitions, at this stage, in effect remain directed only to obtain, in the circumstances, narrated, Sales Tax Exemption Certificate in terms of section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 and pursuant Notification, dated 27-6-1990 issued by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs. This is so as the consignments stood released to the petitioners, upon furnishing bank guarantees, pursuant to interim orders passed in the petitions. Shortly speaking, the broad contention is that the consignments of pesticides imported by the petitioners are exclusively to be used for the purposes of plant protection. As such the same are not liable for any sales tax in relation to which obtention of due exemption certificates under the referred notification is, allegedly, a right of the petitioners. Reference in the context has been made to the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 and its amendment, entitled Agricultural Pesticides (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 promulgated on 7-10-1991. However, it would appear that before such amendment the disputed consignments had already been imported and also landed at Karachi making it difficult for the authorities to act on an amendment, which had followed rather than preceded the imports. Earlier on the legal position prevailing previous to the amendment came up for appraisal in this Court per Constitutional Petition No.D.-1068 of 1989, decided on 12-7 1990 and thereupon in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, where the High Court decision was upheld. The affect of the findings was that imports of pesticides without their registration was found to be illegal. However, the aforesaid amendment is claimed to have overtaken the effect of such a declaration.

In the above context the learned counsel for the petitioner also seems to have relied on the concept of Promissory estoppel, as some policy statements, which allegedly operated to pursuade the petitioners to alter their situation, are attributed. to important functionaries of the Government. Allegedly acting upon such representations, firm letters of credit are stated to have been opened. All these matters, particularly as to facts and sequence of events can be examined at the departmental levels. Then the impact of the Supreme Court decision in Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ashraf PLD 1993 SC 176 and cognate precedent law, can also be examined.

In view of what is stated in the foregoing, learned counsel agree that since the goods have already been released, under the orders of the Court, on the basis of Bank guarantees provided by the petitioners, three petitions can be disposed of by observing that the respondent No.2, may be approached by the petitioners for appropriate adjudications according to law in the context of the exemption claimed from sales tax by the petitioners. The petitioners, of course, in due course would be free to question the findings of the respondent No.2, Director, if aggrieved by the same in the appropriate higher forums, inclusive of re-approaching this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, if so advised. Till the decision by way of adjudication by the respondent No.2, Director, the Bank guarantees would remain in force and would not be encashed. At the same time, however, it is clarified that any collateral action by the respondents Nos.1 and 3 pursuant to the above adjudication would not be precluded, since the goods were released only by way of interim measure in these petitions and would abide the result of appropriate adjudication. In such terms and by consent, these petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs.

AA. /R-267/K

Order accordingly.