' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The principal grievance of the petitioner is that a sum of Rs.19,000 is being wrongly charged and demanded by the Respondent No.4 Millat Tractors Limited ("respondent supplier") from the petitioner in the garb of service and warranty charges which amount is in excess of the notified price of a new tractor booked by the petitioner. Under S.R.O. No.839(I)/98 dated 23-7-1998 ("S.R.O. 839") the respondent supplier is obliged to sell its tractors to the public at prices agreed with the Federal Government. This is a condition for the respondent supplier to avail exemption from input tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The impugned service and warranty charges are admittedly being collected over and above the agreed price after the respondent supplier failed to persuade the Federal Government to concur revision of its tractor prices last fixed in 2002.
2. On the merits of the present petition learned counsel for the respondent supplier has made the statement that a perusal of the booking order of the petitioner reveals that he has not sought from the respondent supplier the services for which the impugned charges are collected. Therefore the impugned amount of Rs.19,000 claimed in excess of the notified price of the tractor shall not be demanded and collected from the petitioner. Resultantly, unless already done, the respondent supplier and its agent, the respondent No.5, are directed to supply forthwith to the petitioner his booked tractor that is financed by the Respondent No.3 Bank, ZTBL at the approved Government price.
3. There is a larger question raised in the written comments of the Federal Government as also of ZTBL that needs to be addressed. It is alleged that the respondent supplier is in continuous breach of its obligation under S.R.O. 839 for charging tractor prices that exceed the prices approved by the Federal Government by a figure ranging from Rs.19,000 to Rs.40,000 per tractor. It is averred in the comments that the Federal Government had directed withdrawal of the impugned charges which represent a unilateral increase in tractor prices by the respondent supplier. Non-ompliance by the latter has led the concerned Ministry to complain to the C.B.R. For taking action.
4. Prima facie the Federal Government has caused for treating the impugned warranty and service charges to be a garb for increasing tractor prices. If the specified services are not new and were previously being billed as part of the tractor prices then the impugned charge constitutes and increase in the prices. If so, such action would not only be unilateral but also in violation of statutory condition and consequent Federal Government directives.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent supplier in the first instance records his embarrassment about the impression of delinquency by the respondent supplier that is created by the irregular accretion of the self-styled impugned charges to its tractor prices. He assures that as a responsible corporate entity of the country the respondent supplier shall make strenuous efforts to settle its dispute in relation to tractor prices with the concerned Ministry in the Federal Government, namely, the Ministry of Industries, Production and Special Initiatives, Islamabad. He seeks two months time for the respondent supplier to arrive at a settlement but urges that the Federal Government in this behalf be directed to consider his grounds for price revision justly, reasonably and fairly. Learned Deputy Attorney General assures that if the respondent supplier approaches the Federal Government for settlement, its proposal shall be considered expeditiously, fairly and reasonably.
6. Upon the foregoing assurance but quite apart from the government approved price to be charged from the petitioner the merits of which relief stands conceded, the consideration of the question regarding the legal validity and effectiveness of the impugned service and warranty charges claimed from customers by the respondent supplier over and above the notified price of its tractors is deferred to some other suitable case in order to allow the parties an opportunity to settle their outstanding dispute amicably within a period of two months from the date of his order.
7. With the direction and the observation made above this petition is disposed of.