2001 PTD 2167 (PLP)

(c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.3‑‑‑Sales tax, recovery of‑‑‑Doctrine of 'promissory estoppel' and 'vested right' When not applicable‑‑‑Where the importer had taken decisive steps and opened the letters of credit before the withdrawal of exemption, the importer could not be asked to pay sales tax on the theory of "promissory estoppel" and "doctrine of vested rights". Alsamrez Enterprises v. Government of Pakistan and others 1986 SCMR 1917 ref Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioner K.M. Virk for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd March, 2000. The petitioner is a manufacturer of incandescent lamps, bulbs and tube‑lights and imported plant and machinery for the manufacture of bulbs and tube‑lights to be installed at the factory premises situated at Sheikhupura Road. On arrival of machinery in Pakistan the petitioner company filed five bills of entries for exemption on 3‑10‑1996 and in one bill of entry for exemption on 21‑12‑1996. Subsequently the petitioner claimed exemption from payment of customs duty in excess of 35 % under Notification bearing SRO No.506(I)/94, dated 9‑6‑1994 as amended by SRO No.384(I)/96, dated 13‑6‑1996 and from whole of Sales Tax. The petitioner's request for the same was refused on the ground that the exemption has not been claimed under the notification while filing the bills of entry.

2. Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that failure to mention the number of Notifications under which the petitioner was claiming exemption in the bills of entry was inconsequential inasmuch admittedly the goods imported by the petitioner were covered by the. Notifications allowing exemption the same could not be denied merely on the ground, of non‑mention of the Notification granting exemption.

3. This contention of the learned counsel is supported by the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Gatron (Industries) Limited v. Government of Pakistan and others 1999 SCMR 1072 wherein it was observed that if a person is otherwise found entitled to the benefit of notification it could not be refused merely on account of wrong mention of the notification. The same principle would apply in the present case also a inasmuch as it stands admitted on all hands that the goods in question were exempted from custom duty partly and from the sales tax wholly when the same were imported.

4. Mr. Khan Muhammad Virk, Advocate/Legal Advisor Customs Department has submitted that the goods were not imported by the petitioner but by another concern Messrs Continental Technologies (Pvt.) Limited and, as such, the petitioner has no, locus standi to ask for any exemption. This argument of the learned counsel is not correct. Although it is true that originally the importer of the goods was Messrs Continental Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. but it is‑evident from the record that the name of the importer was changed, with the consent of [he Federal Government the final certificate from Messrs Continental Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. to Messrs Sayed Bhais Lighting Ltd. which had filed the bill of entry and, as such, it cannot be said that the goods were imported by another concern and not the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents does not deny that the goods qualify for exemption from customs duty under SRO No.384(I)/96, dated 13‑6‑1996 to the extent of 35% and total exemption of sale tax under SRO No.506(I)/94, dated 9‑6‑1994. The exemption from sales tax was withdrawn on 13‑6‑1996 vide SRO No.384/(I)/96, dated 13‑6‑1996. However, as the petitioner had taken decisive steps and opened the letter of credit before the withdrawal of exemption it cannot be asked to pay the sales tax both on the C theory of promissory estoppel and doctrine of vested rights. If any authority is needed reference may be made to Alsamrez Enterprises v. Government of Pakistan and others 1986 SCMR 1917. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner the benefit of Notification bearing No. SRO 506(1)/94, dated 9‑6‑1994 and SRO 384(I)/96 dated 13-6-1996. No order as to costs Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑220/L Petition allowed