' Petitioner No,2, namely Kamalia Sugar Mills Limited owns a sugar mill. Kamalia Sugar Mills Limited and the sugar mill owned by it were being managed by the Administrator, Punjab Industrial Development Board (respondent No,2) when it was privatized. As a result of the privatization, Afrah Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited (petitioner No,1) took over petitioner No,2 and with it the sugar mill in- question.
2. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector of Sales Tax (respondent No,4) issued a notice demanding sales tax from the petitioner Kamalia Sugar Mills Limited amounting to Rs,6,53,47,440 in respect of the sales tax liability of the said company for the year 1996-97.
3. The case of. Petitioner No,1 is that it took over control of petitioner No,2 on 31-7-1998 when it purchased the shares of petitioner No,2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the sales tax liability, mentioned above, was not disclosed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 when petitioner No,2 was being privatized. In these circumstances, the petitioners have prayed for a writ directing respondents Nos.1 to 3 to pay the liability of sales tax to respondent No,4. In the alternate, a writ is sought to direct respondents Nos.1 to 3 to pay the tax liability to the petitioners for onward payment to respondent No,4.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 has denied the liability of respondents Nos.1 to 3 to make payment of sales tax to respondent No,4. He has also not contended that the agreement, whereby shares of Kamalia Sugar Mills Limited (petitioner No,2) were transferred to petitioner No,1, contains an arbitration clause. He has also contended that the petitioners, in fact, seek the enforcement of an agreement and recovery of a monetary amount from respondents Nos.1 to 3 through writ jurisdiction. It is argued on these basis that this petition is not maintainable.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The question before me is simple. There is a dispute between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the respondents Nos.1 to 3, on the other, as to the sales tax liability in-question. This controversy between the parties can only be resolved on the basis of evidence led at a proper trial before a competent Court of Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the case title Usmai Associates v. Pakistan Housing Authority 2005 M LD 233 to argue that a writ could also issue to enforce a contractual right. I have gone through the cited precedent and note that it is clearly distinguishable on fact. In the cited case a liquidated amount was not in dispute and the respondent-Authority had already made part payment of the amount through cheque. In fact, the learned Court observed that the amount payable to the petitioner in the said case had not been disputed rather the non-availability of funds had been pleaded by the Authority which was the respondent in the precedent case.
6. In the present case, respondents Nos.1 to 3 do not acknowledge any liability to pay the disputed sales tax. Furthermore, as noted above, they also assert that the controversy between the parties is to be resolved through arbitration. In these circumstances, the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioners does not advance their case.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that this writ petition is not maintainable. It is, therefore, dismissed.