MR. JUSTICE ABID AZIZ SHEIKH. (1). This order will also decide writ petitions. No. 46130 of 2023, 52862 of 2023, 58816 of 2023, 52763 of 2023, 60649 of 2023, 53679 of 2023, 48672 of 2023, 43713 of 2023, 61784 of 2023, 66057 of 2023, 65044 of 2023, 58140 of 2023, 65056 of 2023, 56587 of 2023, 65051 of 2023 and 65047 of 2023, as common questions of law and facts are raised in all these constitutional petitions.
2. Through these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the vires of various show cause notices and other notices (impugned notices), mainly on the ground that the same are not issued by the Competent Authority. It is argued that impugned notices have been issued by various Authorities/Officers mentioned in section 39 of the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 (Act), however, these Authorities/Officers are not validly appointed through rules, as required under section 39(1) read with section 76 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this short legal question has already been decided by this Court in various petitions alongwith Writ Petition No. 16217/2020 vide judgment dated 06.6.2023, therefore, submits that these petitions may also be decided in the same terms.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defends the impugned notices and submits that aforesaid judgment has already been suspended by the Division Bench of this Court in ICA No. 46318/2023.
4. Arguments heard. I have gone through the judgment of this Court dated 06.6.2023 in writ petition No. 16217/2020 and agree with the reasoning recorded and conclusion drawn therein, which is also on all four to the facts and circumstances of these cases. Merely because the said judgment has been suspended by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be a sole ground not to follow the said judgment for deciding similar matters. It is well settled law that when appeal against Single Bench judgment is filed and the operation of judgment is suspended, such suspension operates only inter parties and not as a judgment in rem, hence does not detract from the binding effect of the judgment as precedent unless the judgment is finally set aside. Reliance in this regard is placed on Maj. Gen. Mian Ghulam Jilani vs. The Federal Government (PLD 1975 Lahore 65), Yousaf A.
Mitha etc. vs. Aboo Baker etc. (PLD 1980 Karachi 492), Mst. Meeran Bibi etc. vs. Manager, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited etc. (2012 CLD 2029), Facto Belarus Tranctor Limited vs. Government of Pakistan etc. (PTCL 2005 CL. 754), Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs. Muhammad Saleem (1994 SCMR 2213), Collector of Sales Tax vs. Messrs Wyeth Pakistan Limited (2009 YLR 2096).
Muhammad Akhlaq vs. Principal Secretary, Prime Minister etc. (2014 PLC (CS) 288) and M/s Firdous Cloth etc. FOP etc. (1CA 913/2015).
5. In view of above discussion, all these writ petitions are allowed in same terms as of judgment dated 06.6.2023 in writ petition No. 16217/2020 and consequently impugned notices are struck down.