2001 PLP 1667 (CLC)

M. Nasar Ahmad for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th April, 2001. Messrs Ayesha Textile Mills Limited, petitioner herein, imported a consignment of automatic cone winding machinery which was to be installed at Sheikhupura. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of customs duty under Notification bearing NO.S.R.O.500(I)/84, dated 14‑6‑1984 as well as under Notification bearing No.S.R.O.‑512(1)/86, dated 29‑5‑1986. The petitioner was allowed exemption under Notification bearing NO.S.R.0.512(1)/86 from the payment of customs duty but the respondents refused to allow exemption from payment of sales tax which, according to the petitioner, could not be recovered in view of the exemption granted by Notification bearing No.S.R.O.‑500(1)/84.

2. On the refusal of the respondents, the petitioner came to this Court by filing two Constitutional petitions namely Writ Petition No.432 of 1988 and Writ Petition No.3258 of 1988, which were disposed of with the observation that the matter may be taken lip after the Central Board of Revenue has given its decision which decided the matter against the petitioner. By filing this petition, the petitioner has called in question the order of the Central Board of Revenue, dated 12‑7‑1988, according to which the petitioner could not claim exemption from payment of taxes under two different notifications simultaneously.

3. Mr. Nasar Ahmad, Advocate has contended that there is no bar in law for claiming exemption from payment of different taxes under different notifications, if the same are applicable. It has been explained that in the present case, originally Notification bearing No.500(I)/84, dated 14‑6‑1984 was issued by virtue of which whole of sales tax and part of customs duty were exempted. Later on by Notification bearing NO.S.R.0.512(1)/86, dated 29‑5‑1986, whole of customs duty was exempted and as such the petitioner was not liable to pay either the sales tax or customs duty.

4. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

5. There is considerable merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the impugned order of the Central Board of Revenue, it is clear that while issuing Notification bearing NO.S.R.O.512(1)/86, dated 29‑5‑1986, the earlier Notification bearing NO.S.R.O.500(1)/84, dated 4‑6‑1984 was not rescinded and that both the Notifications were operative and held the field. There is nothing in the later Notification from which it could even remotely be inferred that the exemption available under the earlier notification has been done away with. There is no bar under any law and at least none has been pointed out in the order of the Central Board of Revenue which bars the importer from claiming benefit under both the notifications so long as both held the field. The petitioner could as such validly claim benefit of both the notifications. In view of above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Central Board of Revenue, dated 12‑7‑1988 is declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. No order as to Q.M.H./M.A.K./A-217/L Petition allowed.