2000 PLP 503 (CLC)

FAZAL-UR‑REHMAN, J.‑‑‑ Through the instant Constitutional petition levy of octroi at Taftan on transit goods imported from Iran and meant for clearance at the Dry Fort, Quetta, has been assailed.

2. The case as set up by the petitioner in the instant Constitutional petition was that five consignments were imported and on arrival at Taftan the same were taken over by the Customs Authorities and were taken under escort to the Customs Dry Port at Quetta. It is stated that the matter is governed by West Pakistan Municipal Committees' Octroi‑ Rules, 1964. According to Rule 2(1) of the said Rules import means import within the Octroi limits and according to Rule 2(M) "Octroi" means a tax on the import of goods for consumption, use or sale within the octroi limits. It is stated that the respondents were not at all entitled to levy octroi on the petitioner's transit goods. It is further stated that the levy of Octroi at Quetta alone was lawful, where the goods were got cleared from the Dry Port. It is maintained in the petition that the petitioner had taken up the matter with the Local Government Department, Government of Balochistan, Quetta, which had issued instructions to all the Local Councils in the province directing them not to levy Octroi or Zila Tax on transit goods. Since respondents failed to appear, therefore, they were ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

3. We have heard Raja M. Afsar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that under the law and rules, octroi is not leviable on transit goods. He has submitted that five consignments of Date and Anardana, which were imported form Iran on arrival at Taftan were taken under escort to the Customs Dry Port at Quetta, but the transit was not allowed and octroi at the flat rate of Rs.2500 per consignment was charged. According to learned counsel, Quetta was the destination and the petitioner had to pay the octroi at Quetta which he did. He has contended that charging of octroi at Taftan on transit goods was against the rules and direction of the Government. Learned Counsel has invited our attention to the instructions/directives contained in the circular/letter of the Government of Balochistan, dated 13th February, 1999. The contents of said letter are reproduced below for the sake of facility:‑‑

"Instances have been brought to the notice of this Department that Octroi/Zila Tax Contractors in connivance with Local Council Staff, are charging Octroi/Zila tax on transit goods which are exempted otherwise under rules: This tantamounts to highhandedness/ insubordination. (2) In spite of the fact that clear instructions have been issued from time for this purpose, which are not being followed in letter and spirit. (3) It is once again reiterated that instructions issued should be rigidly complied with. In case of non‑compliance disciplinary action will be initiated against the Officer/Official concerned and may also lead to termination of contract. " Learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Constitutional Petition No.99 of 1999 while allowing the writ petition, this Court has made the following observations:‑‑ "As we have observed hereinabove that admittedly in the instant case the goods owned by petitioner were being exported from Iran to Pakistan at Dry Port Customs under the customs squad from Taftan to onward, therefore, respondent had no lawful authority to charge Zila tax on the goods. Thus, the action of respondent being A without lawful authority warrants issuance of a writ of mandamous following the rule that the action of respondent is without lawful authority, therefore, objection raised by Mr. Mohsin Javed learned counsel for the respondent concerning non‑maintainability of the petition in presence of alternate remedy is overruled. "

4. It is pertinent to note that the Government of Balochistan has since abolished the recovery of Octroi/Zila tax in the Province of Balochistan w. e. f. 1st July, 1999 vide Notification No. l‑57/78(BLGB)/AO‑IV‑Vol‑II, dated 24th June, 1999, therefore, the prayer clause (III) has become infructuous.

5. In view of above position the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner as their action was without lawful authority. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./10/Q????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.