1997 PLP 3280 (MLD)

BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑The petitioner‑company, Spintex Ltd., seeks leave to appeal from the order passed by a learned Judge in the High Court by which an interim relief granted earlier was vacated. Initially the learned Judge accepted an application for ad interim relief subject to the condition that the petitioner shall furnish surety bond to ensure that in the event of failure of its case it shall pay the duties and taxes recoverable under law. It was also ordered that in case of default the Government shall have power to take over and assume the control of the industry till taxes and ditties are paid. In the writ petition filed by Spintex Ltd. it was stated that the Government of Azad Jamrnu and Kashmir announced certain incentives for setting up industries in the State. It was stated that in a brochure issued by the Government it was declared that if an industry is set up between July 1988 to June, 1991 it will be granted exemption from sales tax for a period of eight years beginning from the date of production. It was further stated that acting on this incentive the petitioner‑company,. Spintex Ltd., was 'incorporated in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and a big plant for manufacturing Polyester Yarn was set up which went into production on 19th of June, 1991. It was averred that according to the declaration of the Government the exemption from sales tax was to subsist till 19th of June, 1999, but the Government turned round and claimed that exemption was to become available from the 1st of July, 1988 and not from the date on which an industrial unit went into production. Reliance was placed by the Government on two Government notifications wherein it is stated that exemption from sales tax shall be effective for a period of eight years a commencing from 1st of July, 1988. This ultimately led to the filing of the writ petition in the High Court which is still pending. We have heard Syed Zahid Hussain in support of the petition. Mr. Umar Mahmood Kasuri. Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and vehemently opposed the grant of leave. It was contended by Syed Zahid Hussain that he has a strong case based on the concept of promissory estoppel. He submitted that the petitioner‑company had invested more than a billion rupees in setting up the industry at Mirpur on the express promise contained in the brochure to which a mention has been made earlier. He relied on Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 180), in which it was held as follows: "It is needless to mention that in a case where temporary injunction is claimed, the plaintiff has only to make out that he has a good prima facie case meaning thereby that a serious question is to be tried in the suit and that in the event of success if the injunction is not issued he will suffer irreparable injury. The appellant has, in the present case, fulfilled all these conditions." We have given anxious consideration to the facts of the case in light of the principles governing grant of temporary injunctions. As laid down in Muhammad Latif's case a petitioner claiming temporary injunction has to show that if injunction is not issued he will suffer irreparable injury. In the present case we do not find that such a situation exists. If the writ petition is accepted the amount of the sales tax paid after 1st of July, 1996 will be refunded to the petitioner. Thus, loss, if any, is not irreparable. In this view of the matter we find no, force in the petition for leave to appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. M.S./194/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.