Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Ss.13 & 47‑‑‑Exemption from sales tax‑‑‑Claim for‑‑‑Importers imported a consignment of 93 units of Mazda Pick‑up and cleared same and claimed exemption from sales tax in terms of S.R.O. 500(1)/88 dated 26‑6‑1988‑‑Claim of importers was rejected by Authorities on ground that said exemption was not available to importers as the same was withdrawn subsequently vide S.R.O. 1105(1)/93 dated 18‑10‑1993 which was published in Official Gazette on 18‑11‑1993‑‑‑Case of importers throughout had been that withdrawal of exemption would become operative only from date of actual publication of Gazette and not from the date mentioned at the top of notification‑‑‑Customs Authorities did not accept contention of importers‑‑‑Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Tribunal accepted contention of importers to the extent that it was important to determine when a notification was brought to public knowledge, but Tribunal had distinguished importer's case observing that importers were State‑owned enterprise and change (in withdrawal of exemption) ought to be in their knowledge‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Reason assigned by Tribunal was untenable, because importers were an entity duly registered under Companies Ordinance, 1984 and though controlling shares could be held, by Government, same were also held by private parties and it was elementary that a company was a separate legal entity from its shareholders‑‑‑Assumption that importers should have prior knowledge of change in taxation matters, was entirely conjectural‑‑ Unless a notification expressly stipulated that it would become effective from a particular date, it would take effect from the date of its actual publication in the Gazette‑‑‑Importers, in circumstances, were entitled to exemption claimed by them to their consignment.

Muhammad Ishaq v. Chief Administrator Auqaf PLD 1977 SC 639 ref.

Arif Khan for Appellant.

Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25^th May, 2000.

ORDER

SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---‑‑‑The facts of this case are simple. The appellant imported a consignment of 93 units of Mazda Pick‑Up and cleared them on 24‑10‑1993 claiming exemption from sales tax in terms of S.R.O. 500(I)/88, dated 26‑6‑1988. The respondents, however, claimed that such exemption was not available to the appellant inasmuch as it was withdrawn vide S.R.O. 1105(I)/93, dated 18‑10‑1993 which was published in the official Gazette on 18‑11‑1993.

The appellant's case throughout has been that the withdrawal of the exemption would become operative only from the date of the actual publication of the Gazette and not the date mentioned at the top of the notification. Nevertheless this contention was not accepted in the hierarchy of Customs Authorities adjudicating the matter and in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Tribunal was also dismissed. The Tribunal took note of a number of judgments of the superior Courts in which the date of actual publication of the Gazette was held to be terminal on the principles that it was important to determine when a notification was brought to public knowledge. Nevertheless it attempted to distinguish the appellants case by observing that the appellants were State owned enterprise and the change (in withdrawal of exemption) ought to be in their knowledge as it was brought, about by their controlling Ministry.

We find that the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal are untenable. Admittedly the appellants are a Corporation entity duly registered under the Companies Ordinance and though the controlling shares may be held by the Government same shares are also held by private parties. It is elementary that a Company is a separate legal entity from its share‑holders and it has been consistently held that Companies which are even fully owned by the Government are separate legal entity and not part of the Government itself. In any case the assumption that appellants should have prior knowledge of a change in taxation matters is entirely conjectural.

Since only a short legal question is involved, we are of the view that remanding the matter to the learned Tribunal would serve no useful purpose. It is well‑settled that unless a notification expressly stipulates that it will become effective from beyond date, it takes effect from the date of its actual publication in the Gazette, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Ishaq v. Chief Administrator Auqaf (PLD 1977 SC 639). The above view has been followed in similar judgments of this Court. Accordingly we allow the appeal and hold that the appellants are entitled to the exemption claimed to the consignment mentioned above.

H.B.T./S‑325/KAppeal allowed.