Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(44) & 34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Ad hoc deposits ‑‑‑Chargeability of sales tax‑‑ Show‑cause notice was issued by Authorities to the petitioner to the effect that at the time 4f receipt of advance payment of value of supply, tax was charged for the value at the rate of 18% of the value, but later on it was paid to the Government at the rate of 12.5% and in. that way petitioner did not pay/deposit differential amount of tax 5.5% which was collected by petitioner from the customers‑‑‑Petitioners in the show cause notice was also directed to show as to why he should not pay additional tax leviable under S.34 of Sales Tax Act, 1990‑‑‑Petitioner had sought declaration in his Constitutional petition to the effect that ad hoc deposits received by him did not fall within the ambit of S.2(44) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and that proposed levy of sales tax on ad hoc deposits was illegal, invalid and of no legal effect‑‑‑Petitioner had stated that question in dispute had already been decided by the High Court in the case reported as 2002 PTD 2440 and that matter in dispute could be decided in the light of the said judgment‑‑‑Matter was remanded to Additional Collector to decide same in accordance with reported judgment and also to decide issue of alleged short deposits of 5.5% by the petitioner after giving him opportunity of hearing.

Pak Suzuki Motor Company Limited v. Federation of Pakistan 2002 PTD 2440 ref.

Muhammad Ather Saeed for Petitioner.

Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25^th October, 2002.

JUDGMENT

S.A. SARWANA, J.‑‑‑This petition has been filed, inter alia, to seek a declaration that the ad hoc deposits, received by the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of section 2(44) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and therefore, the proposed levy of sales tax on these ad hoc deposits is illegal, invalid and of no legal effect.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this question has been decided by Division Bench of this Court as Pak Suzuki Motor Company Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (2002 PTD 2440). However, learned counsel for the respondent states that the issue in the present petition is distinguishable inasmuch as in the show‑cause notice, dated A 1‑5‑2002 issued by Additional Collector‑II, Collectorate of Sales Tax and Central Excise (West) the petitioner was issued a notice to the effect that at the time of receipt of advance payment of value of supply, the tax was charged/collectored for the value at the rate of 18% of the value but later on it was paid to the Government a the rate of 12.5% and in this way the petitioner did not pay/deposit the differential amount of tax of 5.5 % which was collected from the consumers. The petitioners in the said notice was also directed to show cause why they should not pay additional tax leviable under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.

3. Mr. Ather Saeed, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Additional Collector to decide the issue in the light of the judgment referred to above with the direction to look into the question of alleged short deposit of 5.5 % sales tax as indicated in the show‑cause notice and decide the same in accordance with law.

4. Mr. Raja M. Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondents opposes such request; however the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reasonable and accordingly the opposition by the learned counsel for the respondent is rejected.

5. Consequently, the petition is disposed of as suggested above and the matter is remanded to the Additional Collector‑II to decide the issue in accordance with the judgment in the case of Pak Suzuki Motor Company Limited, referred to above and also decide the issue of alleged short deposits of 5.5% by the petitioner after giving them an opportunity of hearing.

The interlocutory application has become infructuous and disposed as such.

H.B.T./H‑113/KOrder accordingly.