' This revision application is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi (West) dated 24-8-2000 and 30-8-2000 respectively in Civil Appeal No,57 of 1999.
2. The revision application was admitted to consider the point whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of S.R.O. No,107(I)/94 dated 2-2-1994. Whereby the rate of taxes and duty were lowered down by the Government.
3. The learned Advocates for the parties have submitted their written arguments and have not addressed any oral arguments. They requested that the revision application be decided on the basis of written arguments submitted by them.
4. Briefly stated the relevant facts as contained in the memo. Of revision application are that the applicant booked a Suzuki Margalla Standard Car at the Provisional Price of Rs.2,88,000 through one of the Authorized Dealers of the respondent and paid the advance amount of Rs.60,000 on 6- 10-1992. No date was fixed for delivery of the car. In September, 1993, the applicant came across an advertisement for delivery of some cars by the respondent and he made inquiry from the Dealer, who informed that the applicant shall be supplied the 'car somewhere in the month of June 1994. It is further alleged that the respondent and other manufacturers/assemblers of Cars were negotiating with the Federal Government for reduction of Sales Tax and ban on import of used cars in Pakistan. It is also alleged that the issuance of notification by the Government got delayed by the respondent and other manufacturers in order to extract extra money from the public. It is averred that on coming to know that the Government has agreed for reduction in taxes, the respondent got advertisements published in newspapers for immediate delivery of STD Cars, as all conditioned cars were not available. It is further alleged that on receiving a circular dated 28-12-1993 from Senior Manager (Sales) of the respondent to deposit the balance amount of the provisional price of Rs.3,16,000, the applicant immediately deposited the balance amount and was delivered car on 17-1-1994. It is contended that the price paid was provisional and the final price was to be fixed by the respondent. Subsequently. The notification reducing the taxes was issued by the Government and the respondent reduced the final price from Rs.3,16,000 to Rs.2.54,000. The price was thus reduced by Rs.62.000. The respondent paid rebate on advance payment but the benefit of reduced price was not extended and hence the applicant filed a suit claiming the amount of Rs.70,345, (inclusive of difference in the price paid and the price reduced as well as the difference in the reduction of taxes) with mark-up at 16%.
5. The respondents have taken plea that the reductions in taxes and price were not with retrospective effect and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to receive the claim. The learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (West) held that. The applicant was not entitled to receive the mark-up on the advance amount paid, but was entitled to receive the difference of Rs.62,000, being difference of the provisional price and final price and the suit was decreed accordingly.
6. The respondent preferred appeal and the learned IInd Additional District Judge held that, according to the invoice, the applicant was required to pay the price at the time of delivery and the applicant took delivery of the car on his own request and on the date of delivery the price was Rs.3,16,000. The price was reduced after the delivery of car to the applicant therefore, the applicant was not entitled to receive the difference. The judgment of the learned trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision application.
8. A perusal of the written arguments filed on behalf of applicant shows that the main contention of applicant is that the car was booked at provisional price, which was to be delivered to the plaintiff on the final price to be fixed by the respondent. The final price was fixed at Rs.2,54,000, therefore, the applicant was entitled to the refund of difference of Rs.62,000. Further plea has been taken in the written arguments that the plea of the respondent that the contract between the parties was fulfilled by the company for delivery of the car and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any benefit on account of subsequent reduction of price is fallacious. It is further contended that the notification dated 6-2-1994 reducing the taxes and custom duty on account of which the price was reduced has the retrospective effect.
9. On the other hand, the respondents have taken plea in their written arguments that the learned Additional District Judge, has rightly framed the point for determination to the effect whether notification dated 6-2-1994 has retrospective effect and is applicable to the sold out cars as well, and has correctly determined that the notification has no retrospective effect. It is further contended that the car was delivered to the applicant according to terms and conditions mentioned in the booking order. Although the payment made by the applicant was provisional, but the delivery was made at the price prevailing at the time of delivery. It is further contended that after taking delivery of the car the applicant is precluded from claiming any benefit on account of the events taking place subsequent to the conclusion of contract. It is further contended that ordinary fiscal statutes pertaining to taxes are not retrospective in effect until and unless expressly mentioned therein and there is no such provision in the Statute.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions contained in the written arguments submitted by the learned Advocates for the parties. The moot points for consideration are, (1) whether the notification reducing taxes and custom duty is retrospective in effect, and (2) whether reduction in the sale price by the respondent is applicable to concluded Contracts.
11. I am of the opinion that no long drawn process of arguments/discussion is required to answer the above points. It is cardinal principle of law of taxation that all taxes/fiscal statutes are prospective in nature until and unless specifically provided for otherwise. A perusal of S.R.O.
No,107(I)/94 dated 2-2-1994 on which the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance shows that it has modified the earlier S.R.O. No,495(I)/84, dated 14-6-1984 through addition of the following proviso: "Provided that on CKD Kits of Cars up to 1600 CC cleared for home consumption or ex-bonded till the 30th June, 1995, the customs duties in excess of 10 per cent ad value shall be exempted."
12. There is nothing in the S.R.O. To show that it has retrospective effect and the first point is answered accordingly.
13. The second point is also off shoot of the same principle, which governs the point No,
1. It is also to law that the fiscal statutes are not applicable to the past and closed chapter and concluded transactions. In addition, any act by a party which is subsequent to a concluded transaction is not attracted applicable to such transactions. To put it conversely, if the respondent would have enhanced the price after supply of the car, the respondent would not have any entitlement to claim the difference from the applicant. Likewise, if the respondent has reduced price after the conclusion of Contract/ transaction the applicant is not entitled to such benefit.
14. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned finding of learned Additional District Judge, warranting any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is therefore, upheld and the revision application stands dismissed.