Pakistan Case Law← Search
1989 PTD 577

CENTRAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CO. vs DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT (PREV),

Citation1989 PTD 577
CourtSindh High Court
Judge(s)Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Abdul Rasool Agha
ResultPetition accepted

1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--The petitioners have challenged the forfeiture of different sizes of cast iron pipes manufactured in their factory valuing at Rs,5,19,721 as a result of search and seizure of the goods by the respondents on 2-1-1988. The admitted position in the case is that the petitioners, are manufacturing cast iron pipes since 1952 and they claim that these cast iron pipes produced by them are used in sanitary fittings. It is also an admitted position that right from 1952 until today the items of sanitary fittings have been exempted under the provision of Sale Tax Act from payment of sales tax thereon. It is not disputed before us that the aforesaid exemption granted to the items of sanitary ware was availed by the petitioners from 1952 upto 1981 on the ground that the cast iron pipes produced by the petitioners are used as sanitary fittings The petitioners have placed on record number of assessment orders from 1976-1i upto 1979-80 in which the respondents consistently accepted the claim of petitioners for exemption of sales tax on the cast iron pipes manufactured by them in their factory. It is also alleged in the Petition that after 1981 no further returns were filed by the petitioners as the system of filing of returns before the sales tax authorities was dispensed with on account of appointment of officers of Central Excise Department as officers for recovery of Sales Tax. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents to dispute the above factual aspect of the case alleged in the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before us number of notifications issued from time to time from the year 1951, exempting sanitary fittings from payment of sales tax therein under the Sales Tax Act. The last notification exempting Sanitary fittings from payment of Sales Tax produced before us is dated 25th June, 1981 in which sanitary fittings are mentioned as item No,57. It reads as under:-

57. Iron and steel falling within headings 73.01 to 73.09, 73.15 and 26.01, saintary fittings produced by Iron and steel foundaries falling under headings 7338, 74.18, 75.06, 76.15, 79.06, steel wire falling under headings 73.14 and 73.15 of the following description.

2. ' It is quite clear from the above notification that sanitary fittings produced by iron and steel foundaries falling under headings No,73.38, 74.18, 76.15 and 79.06 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff are exempted from payment of Sales Tax. We are, however, here only concerned with heading No,73.38, of the Pakistan Customs Tariff which is relevant in the present case. The relevant part of entry 73.38 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff is as follows:- "73.38 Articles of a kind commonly used for domestic purposes, sanitary ware for indoor use, and parts of such articles and ware of iron or steel, iron or steel wool, pot scourers and scouring or polishing pads, gloves and the like, of iron or steel.

3. ' A B Sanitary-ware for indoor use and parts thereof?"

4. It is quite clear from reading of item No,57 of the Gazette Notification dated 25th June, 1981, with item No,73.38 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff that the articles which are commonly used for domestic purposes and sanitary ware for indoor use and parts of such articles and ware, of iron steel, were exempted from payment of sales tax thereon. In these circumstances, there was no justification for the action taken by the respondents in making a search of the factory premises of the petitioner and seizing the cast iron pipes produced by them in their factory as these items were consistently treated by respondents as items of sanitary fittings since 1952 and granted exemption from payment of sales tax thereon accordingly. We accordingly declare the search and seizure of goods under Mashirnama dated 2-1-1988 as without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

5. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in the case under order dated 10-2-1988 is accordingly discharged. There will be no order as to costs.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search