(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16-12-1998 by the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 5958 of 1998).

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---

----S. 8---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Input tax paid---Entitlement to reclaim or deduct input tax paid---Assessees challenged legality of notification according to which they were held not entitled to reclaim or deduct input tax on goods which were not direct constituent and integral part of taxable goods produced by assessees, manufactured or supplied---Reliance was placed on an earlier notification---High Court, while comparing both notifications in juxta-position, found that second notification was valid only to the extent of goods specified in first notification, as a consequence of such finding assessees became entitled to reclaim said deduction---Assessees had directly approached High Court without there being specific denial on part of department of the claim to deduct input tax etc.; in the first instance they had to approach forums provided under Sales Tax Act, 1990 for the purposes before invoking constitutional jurisdiction---Petition was converted into appeal and decided in terms of judgment passed in exactly similar other cases in which same notification was brought under challenge in civil petitions.

A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 13th April, 2000.

JUDGMENT

MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 16-12-1998 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through which Writ Petition No. 5958 of 1998 filed by the respondents was partly accepted for the reasons recorded in the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 9272 of 1998 decided on 2-10-1998.

2. The respondents challenged the legality of notification dated 20-12-1997 issued under subsection (1) of section 8 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 according to which the said respondents were held not entitled to reclaim or deduct output tax on the goods which were not the direct constituent and integral part of taxable goods produced by the respondents, manufactured or supplied. Reliance was placed on an earlier notification, dated 1-7-1996 and the learned Single Judge while comparing both the notifications in juxta-position held that the second notification dated 20-12-1997 is valid only to the extent of the goods specified in the first notification, dated 1-7-1996 as a consequence of which the respondents became entitled to reclaim the said deduction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in exactly similar other cases, the same notification was brought under challenge through Civil Petitions Nos.1986/L, 1987/L, 1995/L, 1996/L, 2012/L, 2013/L, 2016/L, 2019/L and 2020/L of 1998. This Court after examining the relevant provisions of law and the notification in paragraph 7 of the judgment passed in the said petitions on 24-12-1998, came to the following conclusions:--

"(7) In our view the learned Judge in Chambers was not justified in granting a general declaration in respect of the above notification dated 20-12-1997 in the absence of any specific instance of denial by the Department to the respondents to reclaim or deduct the input tax paid on goods which are not the direct constituent and integral part of the taxable goods produced, manufactured or supplied. It would have been appropriate to have asked the respondents to approach the forum provided under the Act by providing guidelines. We have, therefore, converted the above petitions into appeals and disposed of the same in terms of the short order of even date quoted above.^"

4. In the present case also, the respondents appear to have directly approached the High Court without there being specific denial on the part of the Department of the claim to deduct the input tax, etc., therefore, in the first instance they have to approach the forums provided under the Act for the purposes before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction.

5. The present case being identical case, therefore, this petition after hearing learned counsel for the parties is hereby converted into appeal and decided in terms of judgment, dated 24-12-1998 passed in the said civil petitions paragraph 7 of which has been reproduced above.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

H.B.T./C-47/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.