1974 PLP 237 (SCMR)

MUHAMWAD YAQUB ALI, ACTG. C. J.‑The facts on which these three appeals proceed are fully set out in the order passed by the High Court and need not be repeated here. The only question which falls for decision is whether the respondent, who imported machinery, plants and raw material for their own use or for manufacture of finished goods were "persons engaged in the import and export trade" within the purview of the West Pakistan Finance Acts, 1962 and 1963. The High Court has answered the question in the negative and held that the respondents were not persons engaged in the import and export trade. Mr. Usman Ghani, Assistant Advocate‑General, appearing for the Pro vince of Sind, successor to the defunct Province of West Pakistan, argued that according to the dictionary meaning the word "trade" used in the Finance Acts will include import of goods, plants and machinery for personal use or for manufacture of finished goods. He conceded, however, that the word "engaged" read in conjunction with the word "trade" used in section 10 of the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1962, and the corresponding provisions of section 8 of the Finance Act of 1963 bears the connotation which militates against his submission. The learned Judges in the High Court after noticing the meaning given to the word "trade" in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and examining cases decided in foreign jurisdiction observed: "The word "trade" is here used in connection with persons who are engaged in the business of imports and exports. Assuming that this word is of the widest scope in legal usage, we think that context in which it is used in the two enactments requires limitation, on its meaning. It is not every person who is an importer under section 2(c) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, who can be treated as a person engaged in import trade. A person who imports a motor vehicle for personal use is an importer under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, but he does not thereby become a person engaged in the import trade. Likewise, a manufacturer who imports plant and machinery for installation in his factory, or raw materials for manu facture of finished products, though an importer under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, would not be a person engaged in the trade of imports. The words used by the two Finance statutes are "every person engaged in the import and export trade" and the first impression conveyed by these words is that the person who is liable to tax under the statute is one whose main and regular business is imports and exports. We cannot accept the suggestion that an extended meaning should be given to the word "trade" so as to make the West Pakistan Finance Acts applicable even to those persons whose imports are merely anciliary to their principal business of manufacture, or distribution of natural gas." We are in agreement with the reasons given by the learned Judges in support of their conclusion that the respondents were not persons engaged in import and export trade and may add that the West Pakistan Finance Acts, 1962 and 1963, imposed tax on persons and not on the goods imported or exported. This gives a different aspect to the case. The tax was payable by a person who was engaged in a particular trade. This supports the opinion expressed by the learned Judges that the person who is liable to pay tax under the West Pakistan Finance Acts, 1962 and 1963, is one whose main and regular business is imports and exports. On the contrary if tax was payable on the goods imported or exported and not on the person who imports and exports them, he would be plainly liable to pay tax even if the goods imported were for personal use or manufacture of finished goods. This, however, is not the case. The respondents were, therefore, not liable to pay tax under the West Pakistan Finance Acts, 1962 and 1963. Another view of the case is that as fiscal statutes like the West Pakistan Finance Acts, 1962 and 1963, are to be strictly construed and if two interpretations are open, the interpretation in favour of the citizen will be adopted by Courts. This is an additional ground in support of the construction placed by the learned Judges of the High Court on the word "trade." In the above view, all the three appeals are fund to be without any merit and are dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.