1. ' NAS1M HASAN SHAH, J.--The facts which form the background are that M/s Kuku Limited, respondent herein, imported machinery in respect of installation of Factory located on Sheikhupura Road, Tchsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura in 1975. During the relevant period, the Federal Government vide Notification S.R.O. No,1481(I)/74, dated the 4th December, 1974, exempted the plant and machinery to the extent of 50% of the customs duty, if the same was imported and installed in any area of Pakistan excluding the areas specified in Tables A & B to the aforesaid notification. One of the areas specified (in Item No,4 of Para. (ii) of Table 'B' was Tehsil Shandara.
2. ' When the machinery was received in 1975, it was released by customs, against the Bank guarantee and installed in Tehsil Ferozewala in 1975.
3. ' On 30-8-1976, the Federal Government's Notification, dated 4-12-1974 was amended and in Item 4 of Para. (ii) of the Table 'B', the words "Tehsil of Shandara" were substituted by the words "Tehsil of Ferozewala". The amendment was made with retrospective effect, so as to be valid from 4-12-1974.
4. ' After the machinery was installed in 1975, M/s Kuku Limited secured the completion certificate from the Director of Industries, Government of Punjab and filed the said certificate with other documents, with the Collector of Customs, Karachi, for the discharge of its Bank guarantee.
5. However, this request was refused on the ground that the factory was situated in Tehsil Ferozewala, which had been excluded from the scope of the Federal Government's notification, dated 4-12-1974 and the respondent was asked to pay the rebate in the customs duty which was allowed to it earlier. The respondent-Company repudiated its liability to repay the rebate which was earlier allowed to it whereupon the petitioner moved the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and Sheikhupura for the recovery of the dues. Accordingly, the Tehsildar (Recovery), Lahore Cantonment called upon the Company to pay up the customs duties due by it, failing which its property would be attached and sold.
6. ' To avoid these consequences, respondent No,1 filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore and the said learned Court vide judgment/order, dated 23-4-1988 found the demand made by the petitioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and, accordingly, set it aside.
7. ' Hence this petition for leave.
8. ' The learned Deputy Attorney-General has submitted that Shandara Tehsil at one time formed part of Shcikhupura District. On the 8th August, 1960, the area of Shandara Tehsil was split up into two parts. Shandara Town, which was within the limits of the Lahore Municipal Corporation, was made part of Lahore Tehsil, the rest of the area of Shandara Tehsil continued to be part of Sheikhupura District as before but under the new name of. Ferozewala Tehsil. Thenceforth no Sub- Division of the District bore the name of Shandara Tehsil. He further explained that when the Government issued Notification No,S.R.O. 1277(1)/74, dated 5th October, 1974 and No, S.R.O.
9. 1481(1)/74, dated 4th December, 1974, under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, no Tehsil under the name of Shandara existed in the revenue papers, its name having been replaced by Ferozewala. By "Tehsil of Shandara" what the Government meant in the notification was nothing else than the "Tehsil of Ferozewala".
10. The contention is that it is a well-recognised principle of interpretation that modification of language and substitution of words to meet the true intention of the law-maker is quite permissible. Accordingly, the Government Notification No,SRO 148(1)/74, dated 4th December, 1974 mentioning the exemption of 50% of the Customs Duty excluding the area mentioned in Table 'B' i.e, "Tehsil of Shandara which had been renamed "Tehsil Ferozewala" by then, was rightly corrected by the subsequent Notification, dated 30-8-1976 by substituting it with the words "Tehsil of Ferozewala". This was not a case of giving retrospective effect to a notification, but only a correction of a clerical error.
11. ' The contention needs further consideration. .