1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C.J.-- The petitioner-company is running a Marble Industry. It is stated that they are manufacturing marble tiles, slabs and handicrafts.
2. ' The Excise and Land Customs Department by a notice, dated 13-2-1983 (Annexure 'D') asked the petitioners to pay sales tax on the goods produced by them. This notice states that the petitioner was producing table tops, slabs, cubes blocks and other finished and polished products and further that on such products the exemption contemplated under P.C.T. Tariff does not apply. By the same notice they were also directed to disclose the past clearances as from 25-6-1981 so that the amount of sales tax could be recovered. It seems that this order is not a final order because neither had any liability been determined nor did the respondent determine the total quantity of goods manufactured. By this notice the petitioners had been directed to disclose their production.
3. ' Without any such order being passed the petitioners made an application before the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, and also to the Member (Sales Tax) of the Central Board of Revenue. The latter replied to the petitioner by a letter, dated 6-8-1983 (Annexure 'G') stating that only marble chips and slabs falling under P.C.T. heading 25.15 were exempted but other goods were not exempted because by a Notification No. S.R.0.666(1)/1981, dated 25-6-1981, these goods were liable to be charged the sales tax. The matter rested at that and we have not been informed what had thereafter happened at the level of the Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs.
4. However, the petitioners have produced another letter, dated 7-1-1985 which is more or less to the same effect as the earlier letter, dated 6-8-1983.
5. 'Mr. Liaquat Merchant appeared before us on pre-admission notice and raised two-fold contention.
6. Firstly, that no final order has been passed, therefore, the petition was premature and secondly that the case would involve a sort of factual enquiry in regard to quality of goods and such enquiry is rarely undertaken by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. We further find that this petition is also belated and liable to be defeated on the doctrine of lathes because order by Central Board of Revenue was passed on 6-8-1983 viz. about 20 months back.
7. On consideration of the material, we are in no doubt whatsoever that no final order has been passed against the petitioners and the proceedings before the respondent No. 2 have not reached the culmination point. After a final order is passed the petitioners will have a right to appeal and a revision. Until all such remedies which are provided by statutes are exhausted, this Court would not be inclined to exercise its jurisdiction. We are of the view that at present the material available on the record is not sufficient for us to arrive at a conclusion in regard to the quality of the goods. This will have to be determined on the facts of the factual enquiry which the statutory functionaries have to carry out. We have, therefore, not entered into this question.
8. ' For such reason we are of the view that such petition at present is not maintainable. We dismiss this petition.