' ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.--The admitted facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 4th March, 1975, dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of Rs.2,97,926.63 may be shortly stated. The appellant, Messrs Mothercat Limited, Karachi, and the late Mr. George Talia entered into joir.t venture agreements for the execution of certain works relating to Indus Basin Project in Pakistan. They carried on joint venture business under the name and style of Talihap. The appellant is now the successor-in-interest of Talihap.
2. The West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), respondent 3, under the terms of contract which it entered into with Talihap, reimbursed the latter the customs duty, excise duty and sales tax which it had to pay to the Federal Government of Pakistan in respect of the machinery which it had imported from abroad. When after completion of works the machinery was put up for sale the Customs Department of the Government of Pakistan demanded payment of customs duty, excise duty and sale tax over again and the same amounting to Rs.2,97,926.63 were paid. Describing the levy of customs duty, excise duty and sales tax second time to be unlawful the appellant brought suit to recover the same. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court.
3. The double recovery of customs duty, excise duty and sales tax touching the machinery upon which such duties and tax had already been levied and paid was illegal and unwarranted. The learned counsel representing the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Collector, General Excise and Land Customs, Lahore, respondents 1 and 2, could not legally support such an unlawful levy. The appellant is entitled to the refund of the amount in question which respondents 1 and 2 unlawfully realised from it. The decision of the learned trial Court rejecting the appellant's claim is not sustainable. The appeal is accepted, the dismissal of the appellant's suit recorded by the learned trial Court is set aside and the suit is decreed against respondents 1 and 2 with costs throughout. In view of the decree against respondents 1 and 2 the appellant does not press its claim against respondent 3. So, the suit qua respondent 3 stands dismissed.