P L D 1971 Dacca 19 (PLP)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The Rules in these four petitions have been heard together and are now being disposed of by one order as the question involved is the same in all the four petitions. The facts in the four petitions are not in dispute and the only question that calls for consideration is whether the Government of Pakistan that issued the impugned Notification was competent to do so. The impugned Notification is dated 2‑12‑66 and it runs as follows :‑ "In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 12‑A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944) and in supersession of the Ministry of Finance Notifica tion No. S. R. O. 38(R)/64, dated the 21st June 1964, the Central Government is pleased to exempt, laundry soap produced in a factory which is operated without the aid of power, steam or gas and the owner of which has no financial interest in any other industrial or commercial enterprise, from the whole of the duty leviable thereon under the said Act." Section 13‑A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter called the Act is as follows: "Exemptions.‑(1) The Central Government may from time to time, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt any goods or class of goods from the whole or any part of the duty leviable under this Act." The petitioner in each case is a manufacturer of laundry soap produced in his factory which is operated without the aid of power, steam or gas. Each one of the petitioners has also some financial interest in some other industrial or commercial enterprise, and this is not in dispute. On behalf of the petitioners it has been contended that the imposition of the condition ; "and the owner of which has no financial interest in any other industrial or commercial enterprise" in the impugned Notification is illegal inasmuch as the Govern ment has thereby transgressed their powers of exemptions under section 12‑A of the Central Excises and Salt Act and have made invidious distinction in respect of persons who have some financial interest in some other industrial or commercial enterprise. It has been argued further that the exemption that the Government was competent to make was limited to the choice of goods or class of goods and that the exemption could not be made relatable to persons who had no financial interest in any other industrial or commercial enterprise. On the other hand the learned Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the Government was wholly competent to make such exemption as contained in the impugned Notification. The idea underlying such exemption has been to afford protection to certain manufactures with reference to particular goods. In support of his contention he has relied on a decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Messrs Amin Soap Factory v. Government of Pakistan (20 D L R 266). In the case under report a similar question of law with reference to the same Notification had arisen for determination and a Division Bench of Lahore High Court held that the Central Government was competent to lay down the condition in question in the impugned Notification. We are in full agreement with this decision. The underlying idea of an exemption under section, 12‑A of the Act is to provide safeguard to the manufacture of certain goods and the goods and the persons cannot, therefore, be separated from each other. Besides the impugned condition appears to us to be reasonable inasmuch as the exemption has sought to be limited solely to manufacturers who have no other industrial or commercial enterprise than the factory which produced laundry soap without the aid of power, steam or gas. This can by no means be described as exceeding the power of legislation delegated to the Government under section 12‑A of the Act as was sought to be argued by Mr. Hamidul Huq Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Petition No.

214. Under section 3 of the Act laundry soap is subject to the payment of tax. The impugned Notification far from affecting any manufacturer has in granting exemptions to a class of laundry soap manufacturers conferred benefit on a class of the subject on the basis of a reasonable distinction which is fully in keeping with the spirit of the time not to make the rich richer. Such act on the part of the Government should, therefore, receive a liberal and not too technical an interpretation. It may be mentioned that the Notification preceding the impugned Notification limiting the grant of exemption to manufacturers producing up to 100 tons per year was also relatable to person as indeed it must have been, and yet it has been conceded on behalf of the petitioner that the former Notification was not objectionable. Mr. Rafiqul Islam, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Petition 374 of 1967 has tried to distinguish the case of the petitioner by saying that the only other business that the petitioner had was an oil mill producing mainly roina oil which is one of the ingredients of laundry soap, and therefore he does not come within the mischief of the condition, "and the owner of which has no financial interest in any other industrial or commercial enterprise". We are unable to accept this contention. There is no substance in any one of the four Rules and they are all, therefore, discharged. HABIBUR RAHMAN, J.‑I agree. A. E. Rules discharged.