' Petitioner No. 1 is Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Service Corporation Ltd., a statutory body, whose one of the object is stated to be to help, guide, promote through financial, technical and other means the farmers and the agricultural community. Its case as presented by its learned counsel as far as relevant for disposal of this petition is that when it imports potatoes within the Municipal Limits of Chunian for putting them in cold storage, it is not liable to octroi tax as defined in clause (m) of rule (2) of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, because it does not import the potatoes for "consumption, use, or sale". So is the case of other persons who are ordinary farmers and bring their potatoes to the storage for preservation so that they can take back those for seeding the next harvest. The learned counsel states that these growers are not liable to octroi tax as defined because they do not import the potatoes within the Municipal limits for "consumption, use or sale" as defined but for preservation.
2. Learned counsel for the Committee has contested the petition, firstly, on the ground that the petitioners should have filed an appeal, if aggrieved of the levy of octroi tax, and he placed reliance on Kh. Abdul Waheed etc. v. Government of the Punjab etc. (1), and secondly, that the petitioners are liable even if the potatoes are not imported within the Municipal limits "for consumption" or "sale" but for storage because that is the 'use' of the potatoes.
3. In reply to the first contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Municipal Committee, Multan, through its Chairman v. Burmah Shell Storage and Distributing Co. Of Pakistan Ltd. Etc. (2) and submitted that the petition raises a question of interpretation of law of wide application, therefore, a Constitutional petition is the only appropriate and adequate remedy. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1978 Lah. 811 (2) PLD 1976 Lab. 726 {{FOOT NOTE}}
4. Having heard the arguments at length from the learned counsel for the parties, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition is maintainable as it involves interpretation of law of general application and the Constitutional remedy is the most appropriate and adequate for a speedy decision avoiding prolonged litigation and possible conflicting decisions. Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the quoted judgment by him is apt and fully applicable to the case in hand.
5. Coming to the crux of the controversy, it would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce the definition of the octroi tax. It is as follows vide rule (2) clause (m) of the West Pakistan Municipal Committee Octroi Rules, 1964 : "Octroi" means a tax on the import of goods for consumption, use, or sale within the octroi limits."
' It is the common case of the parties that as the potatoes are not imported within the octroi limits for consumption or sale by the petitioners , the latter are not liable. The divergence is on the word "use". The petitioners' case is that the import is not for 'use' but for preservation by keeping the potatoes in the cold storage whereas that of the respondent is that that is the 'use' of the potatoes and, in any case, the potatoes will be used ultimately, may be by export later on outside the octroi limits. Therefore, ultimate use will retroact on the storage for the preservation.
6. Before dealing with the question in issue, one might as well refer to the fact that the dispute is about imposition of tax and the principle applicable for construction of taxing statute are in the words of Rowlatt, J. (in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. I. R. C. (1) about whom Viscount Simon, I. C. Said as quoted in Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn., page 113, that his outstanding knowledge was coupled with a happy conciseness of phrase, "that in taxing Act one has to look at what is clearly said. There is no room for intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax.
Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only loo fairly at the language used".
Craies quotes Lord Parker of Waddington having said in 1914 that "The Finance Act is a taxing statute and if the Crown claims a duty thereunder it must how that such a duty is imposed by clear and unambiguous words". "It is not the function of a Court of Law to give to words a strained and unnatural meaning", said Lord Simones in I. R. C. v. Wolfson (2), "because only thus will a taxing section apply to a transaction which, had the Legislature thought of it, would have been covered by appropriate words".
Keeping these principles in view, the provision of liability to octroi tax may be examined which is "on the import of goods for use or sale within the municipal limits". Words are to be understood in C the context is trite law. Now, the word 'use' is in between 'consumption'' and 'sale', both of which carry the meaning that the goods will get disposed of by consumption or sale. Therefore, the word 'use' has to be interpreted in the sense that the user will diminish, decrease or lead to extinction of the goods in due course as is natural with the "use" of goods. The word 'use' does not mean nor carry the connotation that the goods will be kept intact or preserved. While interpreting words or law, the primary purpose has to be kept in view, that is another principle. If the primary purpose or dominant desire is not to 'use' the goods but to keep those or preserve those by putting those in cold storage, then the importers would not be liable under the provision. If the intention is not to 'use' the goods, the liability {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) (1921) 1 K B 64 (71) (2) (1949) 1 All E R 165 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' is not there under the law. In a case of infringement of patent by use of the patented goods, the defendants said that they had no intention to 'use' the article. Bacon, V. C. Said in United Telephone Company London and Globle Telephone and Maintenance Company (1) nearly a century ago in 1884 that `If it is not their intention to use the instruments, then the injunction asked for can do them no harm". Though the injunction was issued but intention was taken into account as a valid ground.
The purpose for which goods are imported or the intention of the importer seems to have been recognized by the aforementioned Rules as well as in rule 35 it is provided that: "When goods liable to octroi are presented at an octroi Post, the person in charge of the goods shall declare whether the goods are intended for-
(a) consumption, use or sale within the octroi limits, ' Rule 36 lays down that "if no declaration is made under rule 35, it shall be deemed that the goods are intended for consumption, use or sale within the octroi limits."
8. From the above two provisions, it would appear that the goods would be deemed to be imported "for consumption, use or sale" under rule 36, if no declaration is made under rule 35. In the former case, obviously the goods will be liable for octroi duty but naturally not in the latter case. If this be the law, the petitioners would not be liable to the Octroi duty when they import potatoes within the Municipal limits of Chunian not for consumption or sale but for putting those in cold storage for preservation and they make the requisite declaration under rule 35. It goes without saying that a false declaration will entail its own consequences provided under the law. A word may be said about the ultimate use of the potatoes as the learned counsel for the respondent contended that they should determine the liability and that the Potatoes, shall obviously be used finally at some stage. The argument is specious no doubt but its subtlety is no guarantee of its validity. A man is born to die. There is no doubt about it. But at the time of birth, death duty is neither claimed nor imposed. Therefore, ultimate end is not the determining factor during the currency of an event.
Consequently, when the potatoes are imported for preservation by putting those in the cold storage, those are not put to 'use' and ultimate use thereof either by sale or seeding purposes for the next harvest would not mean that those have been put to use in the present.
9. From what has been stated above, it is quite clear that as long as the present intention of the petitioners while importing potatoes in the Municipal limits of Chunian is not for "consumption, use or sale" and they so declare that under rule 35 of the Rules ibid, they shall not be liable to the Octroi tax. It goes without saying that any misrepresentation about the intention or the declaration under rule 35 will bring about its own consequences under the law. The petition is thus allowed but as it involved interpretation of law the parties shall bear their own costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1884 Ch. D 766 {{FOOT NOTE}}