(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑2‑2003 passed in Writ Petitions Nos.21041, 21046, 21790, 21791, 21792, 21801, 21802, 21803, 21844, 21845 and 21846 of 2001).

(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 3(2)(a)‑‑‑S.R.O. 1032(1)/94, dated 18‑10‑1994‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Fourth Sched., Federal Legislative List, Item 49‑‑ Supply of coal produced by Coal Miner‑‑‑Levy of sales tax on such supply‑‑‑Validity‑: ‑Such levy was Constitutionally justified for not being a kind of tax on any mining activity, rather same was on sale, importation, exportation, production, manufacture and consumption of goods as envisaged by Entry No.49 of Fourth Sched. of the Constitution.

(b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 3(2)(a)‑‑‑S.R.O. 1032(1)/94, dated 18‑10‑1994‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 25‑‑‑Supply of coal produced by Coal Miners‑‑ Levy of sales tax by Federal Government on such supply‑‑‑Recovery of sales tax from Coal Miners in Punjab at ad valorem rate, while in Balochistan at fixed rate‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Sales tax' was recoverable under S.R.O. 1032(1)/94, at the same rate from Coal Miners in all the four Provinces‑‑‑Such recovery .had been made in different manner in Province of Balochistan on account of circumstances prevailing there as Provincial Government had agreed to contribute towards payment of sales tax on behalf of Coal Miners in its Province, while remaining amount was to be paid by Coal Miners‑‑‑No case of discrimination regarding levy of ‑ tax at same rate had been made out against the Federal Government.‑‑Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants (in all Petitions).

M. Yawar Ali Khan, Dy. A.‑G., Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record and Manzoor Hussain, Secretary, Sales Tax for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2003

JUDGMENT

MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J. ‑‑‑By this common judgment we propose to decide all the titled petitions involving identical questions of law and facts.

2. The petitioners in these petitions are holders of mining licence of coal in the Province of Punjab. They objected to ‑imposition of sales tax on the sale of coal by the Federal Government on the ground that it is a tax on mining activity and. not the sale of goods, therefore, was not within the competency of the Federal Government to make law to levy such a tax as the same was out of purview of Entry No.49 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.

3. The learned Judges of the High Court have come to the conclusion that the sales tax on the sale of coal excavated by the petitioners through mining. Activity was not a kind of tax on any mining activity but on sale, importation, exportation, production, manufacture and consumption of goods as envisaged by Entry No.49 of the said Schedule of the Constitution. Since levy of sales tax is Constitutionally justified under this Entry of the said Schedule, therefore, this arguments has not force.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the last date of hearing attempted to argue that the petitioners in Punjab had been discriminated as regards levy of sales tax inasmuch as the Coal Miners in the Province of Balochistan were being charged sales tax at fixed rate whereas the same law was being charged from the petitioner at ad valorem.

5. We have gone through the notification through which the sale tax has been levied. It reads as under:‑‑

"Notification No.S.R.O. 1032(1)/94, dated 18th October, 1994. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of subsection ,(2) of section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the Federal Government is pleased to declare that the supplies of locally produced coal shall be ,liable to sales tax at the specific rate of eighty‑nine rupees per metric ton."

The Secretary, Sales Tax, who was directed to appear has brought the record and says that so far as this notification is concerned no discrimination has been made inasmuch as the sales tax is recoverable under the said Notification at the same rate from Coal Mines, in all the four Provinces but on account of special circumstances prevailing in the Province of Balochistan, administratively, the recovery of sales tax Was made in different manner in that the Provincial Government agreed to contribute towards the payment of sales tax on behalf of Coal Miners of the said Province whereas the remaining amount was to be paid by the Coal Miner therefore, there was no discrimination so far as the levy of tax at the same rate by the Federal Government is concerned.

6. In this view of the matter, no case of discrimination has been made out on the part of the Federal Government.

7. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions have no merits which are accordingly dismissed and leave refused.

S.A.K./M‑924/L Leave refused.