P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

Z. C. Valiani for Respondent. MUHAMMAD BACHAL, J.‑

Under an invoice dated the 15th August 1952, the petitioner imported 136 bales of hard sized 70% Mechanical Cream Laid printing paper. On the 17th October 1952, he presented the bill of entry. The goods were assessed to duty under item Ex. 44 (iii) Pakistan Customs Tariff, First Schedule, section 10, which runs as under :‑ "Ex. 44 ; Printing Paper containing mechanical wood pulp amounting to not less than 70 per cent. of the fibre content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) All sorts not in reels, White and Grey. On the 21st October 1952, the petitioner gave an under taking that he was ready to pay any difference of duty after test report. On the 25th October 1952, the petitioner's request for release of the goods at the rate under the above article was granted as he was ready to pay the difference under _ Article 44 which reads as under, if the test report was other‑ wise : "Ex. 44 ; Paper, all sorts, not otherwise specified". On the same day a demand notice for the difference of Rs. 7,328 was issued. On the 13th May 1953, the petitioner was required to pay this difference as the goods were hardsized paper which were assessable to duty under Item 44 irrespective of M. W. P. contents. The petitioner's appeal was rejected on this ground and also the revision application. It is contended that this demand was time barred under section 39 of the Sea Customs Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. But we consider that this demand was not time barred as it was in continuation of the demand dated the 25th October 1952. On the 27th March 1956 a demand notice was issued to the petitioner and in case of non‑payment for action under the last clause of section 39 of the Act. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to withdraw the said demand for the payment of Rs. 7,328 and restrain him from refusing to pass the goods. Mr. Valiani for the respondent argued that Pakistan Customs Tariff mentions only 87 articles. Therefore the rules 6f interpretation of the Central Board of Revenue under section 9 (c) of the Act regarding the other articles have to be followed by the Court. In Bank of Chettinad Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax Madras (A I R 1940 P C 183) their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the principle of all fiscal legisla tion is that if the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be. The Central Bard have not framed any statutory rules consistent with the Act under section 9 (c) of the Act which bind the Courts. It is conceded that the goods were printing paper not in reels, white. But it is urged that as the paper was hardsized, Item 44 and not Ex. 44 (iii) would apply. But we think the words "All sorts" in Item Ex. 44 (iii) include hardsized printing paper. It is plain from the notice dated the 27th March 1956 that the customs authorities evidence an intention that it could proceed to apply the penal provisions of the Act against the petitioner if he failed to meet the demand and in order to escape from such serious consequences threatened without authority of law and infringing fundamental right, relief by way of mandamus was clearly the appropriate relief. We, therefore, hold that this is a fit case in which the writ should be issued against the respondent as prayed in clause (a) of para. 15 of the petition. The respondent will bear the costs of the petitioner. K.B.A. Mandamus issued.