SCMR 1987

1987 PLP 1876 (SCMR)

Messrs BISVIL SPINNERS LTD.-Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.283 of 1985, decided on 22nd July, 1987.
Honorable Judges
Nasim Hasan Shah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1987 PLP 1876 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Nasim Hasan Shah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
Parties Messrs BISVIL SPINNERS LTD.-Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE
Primary Law Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1876 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Sales Tax Act (III of 1951) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1876 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1876 (SCMR) (Messrs BISVIL SPINNERS LTD.-Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)

Representation

  • Muhammad Amin Butt, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Malik Abdul Qayyum, Dy. Attorney-General Pakistan for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 22nd July, 1987.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 19-1-1985, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.2888 of 1983).

Ss. 3 & 7--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185<3)- Notifications No.666(1)/81, dated 25-6-1981, Item No.38, No.579(1)/83, dated 11-6-1983 and No.580(17)/83 dated 11-6-1983--Exemption from sales tax--Fabrics of man-made fibre--Leave to appeal granted to consider submissions that according to departmental practice when it was proposed to levy duty, even at reduced rate, on any goods which were previously exempt, provision regarding exemption was formally deleted by notification and thereafter a new notification was issued imposing levy at the reduced rate; that although carpets were included in expression "fabrics of man-made fibre" which were exempt from sales tax by virtue of Item No.38 in Notification No.666/81 but .this item had not been deleted and was still intact in notification No. 579 dated 11-6-1983, and that despite issuance of Notification No. 580 (1)/83 whereby machine made carpets had been made leviable to duty, the exemption already allowed under Notification No.666 of 1981 would continue to rule the field and would not cease to be operative.

Judgment & Decree

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The relevant facts are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of carpets and rugs of man-made fibre. Under section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1958 a sale tax is leviable on all goods manufactured in Pakistan at the rate of 12 of the value of goods. However, the Federal Government has the power by notification under section 7 to exempt any goods from the sale tax or to make a reduction in the rate of sale tax leviable in respect of any goods. Accordingly, the Federal Government issued a notification No.666 (1)/81 dated 25-6-1981 whereby goods as specified in the table subjoined to the notification were exempted from sale tax. By virtue of item No.38 of the said table exemption from tax was made applicable to the fabrics of man-made fibre and carpets manufactured by the petitioner were treated as covered by the said item 38 and the same were allowed exemption. Simultaneously with the above notification another notification No. 667 (1)/81, dated 25-6-1981 was issued whereby sale tax was reduced in respect of goods mentioned therein under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act. Subsequently, the Federal Government issued a notification No.579 (1)/83, dated 11-6-1983 amending notification No. SRO 666 (1)/81 dated 25-6-1981, but by the said amending notification the said item 38 was continued to-be operative with the result that the exemption there under of the petitioner's goods was allowed to continue. By another notification No. 580(1) /83, dated 11-6-1983 the notification No. SRO 667 (1)/81 dated 25-6-1981 relating to reduction in rate of sale tax in respect of certain goods was amended and there under levy of sale tax was reduced to 5% of the value of goods in respect of machine made carpet falling under sub-head (e), (f) and (g) of heading No.58.02 and 59.02 of the I.D.C. Schedule. The respondents acting under the said notification No.580 (1) / 83 dated i1-6-1983 made a demand from the petitioner to pay sale tax at the reduced rate in respect of carpets lying in their stores. The legality of the said demand was challenged by the petitioner by instituting a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. During the pendency of the said writ petition a concession was made on behalf of respondents that according to the decision of Central Board of Revenue, Sale Tax would be charged only with effect from 11-6-1983 and the previous liability in respect of the tax was waived. However, the other question which was raised in the constitutional petition, namely, that no duty could be charged on machine made carpets despite issuance of the notification No.580 (1) /83 dated 11-6-1983 was rejected and the constitutional petition was dismissed by order dated 19-1-1985 of the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Mr. Muhammad Amin Butt, learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that according to the departmental practice when it is proposed to levy duty, even though at reduced rate, on any goods, which were previously exempt, the provision regarding exemption is formally deleted by a notification and thereafter a new notification is issued imposing levy at the reduced rate. In support of this practice he drew our attention to the case of cosmetics. In the said case in the notification No.666 dated 25-6-1981 cosmetics were exempted from duty but when it was proposed to impose some duty thereon notification No.579 (1)/ 83 dated 11-6-1983 was issued whereby the entry relating to cosmetics in the notification No.666 dated 25-6-1981 was omitted and by a subsequent notification No.580 (1)/83 issued on 11-6-1983 the duty of 7.5 % was levied thereon. No such procedure was adopted in the case of machine made carpets. On the other hand, although carpets were admittedly included in the expression "Fabrics of man made fibre" which were exempted from sale tax by virtue of item No.38 in the notification No.666/81 but this item has not been deleted and is still intact in the notification No. 579 dated 11-6-1983; therefore, despite the issuance of notification No.580 (1)/83 whereby machine made carpets have been made leviable to duty at the rate of 5% the exemption already allowed under notification No.666 of 1981 will continue to rule the field and has not ceased to be operative. The case is one of first impression. We would, accordingly, grant leave to appeal. Security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs.2,

500. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with permission to the parties to add additional documents, if any. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a stay order. This is vehemently opposed by Malik Abdul Qayyum, Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan. We consider that the best course to be followed is that instead of issuing any interim order in this case the appeal itself should be heard at a very early date. Let the appeal be fixed for hearing in the month of November, 1987. S.Q./B-16/S Leave granted.