P L D 1978 Karachi 244 (PLP)

(Food Division) Karachi, the 24th February 1961. To The Chief Assessor & Collector of Terminal Tax. Municipal Corporation, Opposite Railway goods Office, McLeod Road, Karachi. Sub : Terminal Tax‑Imported wheat. Sir, I am directed to refer to this Ministry's letter of even number dated 23‑7‑1960 (copy enclosed) on the above subject and to request that an amount of Rs. 36,358/6 paid as Terminal Tax by Messrs Ameejee & Valeejee & Sony. Clearing and Forwarding Agents to this Ministry, may please be refunded to them at an early date under intimation to this Ministry. The entire wheat of the three steamers was despatched to up‑country direct from the Wharf and therefore the question of levying Terminal Tax does not arise. Early action will be appreciated. Your obedient servant, (Sd.) (Q. A. Jaffri) for Director of Procurement and Distribution (Foodgrains). Copy to : (1) Messrs Ameejee Valeejee & Sons, Campbell Street, Karachi with reference to their letter No. F. D. No. C&P/WT‑Contract 61 dated 20‑1‑1961. They ma; please contact Karachi Municipal Corporation for refund of the amount. (2) Accounts Branch." The perusal of the contents of the aforesaid letter does not reveal an express admission that there is a debt owed by the appellant to respondent No.

1. But it is now well laid down that an admission of liability need not be express and may be inferred by Implication from the language of the writing and the surrounding circumstances. In M. G. Kadir & Co v. Abdul Latif P L D 1970 Kar. 708. the D. B. after undertaking an extensive review o the case‑taw, laid down that a writing claimed to be an acknowledgment must be Interpreted liberally, so as to maintain the right to sue rather than in negation or derogation of such right. The learned Judges of the D. B. laid down the test to determine whether a writing constitutes sufficient acknowledgment under section 19 of the Limitation Act as under :‑ (i) Whether there is admission of liability or of jural relation ship : (ii) Whether this admission is relatable to subsisting liability or jural relationship so that in the latter case, on ascertainment of facts constitut ing the jural relationship, as in the case of accounts between the parties, a debt or liability shall be found to exist against the one or the other of the parties. This decision was followed in a later case reported as Harchandari v. Popular Metal Works P L D 1971 Kar.

925. In the light of the principles enunciated in these decisions, we have come to the conclusion that the letter (Exh 5/23) does constitute a valid acknowledgment under section 19 and has the effect of extending the period of limitation by 3 years with effect from 24‑2‑1961. Now this letter has been written In continuation of the Ministry's previous letter dated 23‑7‑1960 which Is to the evidence vide Exh. 5/ 1 6 and was to the same affect and in turn referred to yet another previous letter of the Ministry on the subject dated 9-4‑1960. It would be pertinent to reproduce this letter also as under :‑ No. FG‑8 (50)/59 Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food & Agricultural, (Food Division)Karachi, dated the 9th April 1960. To Messrs Ameejee Valeejee & Sons Campbell Street, Karachi. Subject : Terminal tax Dear Sire, I am directed to reproduce below a copy of letter No. THC/1240/58, dated the 8th December 1958, from the Chief Assessor and Collector of Terminal Tax, regarding exemption from payment of Terminal Tax, of goods which are in transit for movement to up country. No terminal tax is therefore payable by Government in respect of wheat being booked direct from shipside to up country destinations. You are requested to check up if any payment of Terminal Tax has been made by you in respect of wheat sent direct from shipside to up country stations, in which case necessary refund claims may be preferr ed against the Terminal Tax Department. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) Illegible for Director of Procurement and Foodgrains Distribution Copy to : (1) The Chief Assessor & Collector of Terminal Tax. Karachi Municipal Corporation. Opp. Railway Goods Office, Meclod Road, Karachi. (2) Accounts Branch. (3) R. P. Branch." The import of this letter clearly was that the appellant eras communicating to the respondent No. 1 their stand that no terminal tar was payable on their goods which are in‑transit and requested respondent No. 1 that if any payment on account of the tax has been made by the latter a claim for refund he preferred. The words "no terminal tax is therefore payable by the Government in respect of wheat being booted direct from shipside to up country destinations", are very significant. They clearly Imply that the appellant was calling upon its agent to claim refund on their behalf as the Government was not liable to terminal tax on their goods which were in transit. The sequence of letters commencing from the last‑mentioned communication culminates in the letter Exh. 5/23, upon which reliance has been placed. But even otherwise in the last‑mentioned letter also it was conceded on the part of the appellant that respondent No. 1 were agents of the Ministry and on this basis the appellant called upon the K. M. C. to refund the amounts received by way of terminal tax under intimation to the appellant. Having regard to these facts the test laid down in the cited decisions is fully applicable, inasmuch as an admission of jural relationship is established from the contents of the latter in the context of the preceding correspondence and the facts therefore positively lead to the inference that in case of refusal on the part of the K. M. C. to allow refund of the payments, a debt or liability would be found to exist against the appellant. Thus suit filed by the respondent No. 1 qua the appellant was also abundantly within time. The respondent No. 1 has not pressed the cross objections filed by it In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. I. MAHMUD, J.‑I agree. S. A .H. Appeal dismissed.