1. SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.---By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above five Constitutional Petitions as common point of law is involved in all of them.
2. The point in issue in above five cases is that, whether the withdrawal of exemption under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1957 with effect from 26-6-1988 would not be given effect to retrospectively so as to infringe the petitioners' vested rights which accrued to them when they made payments and opened letters of credit prior to 26-6-1988.
3. It may be observed that the above point was also the subject-matter of the Constitutional petition reported in Crescent Pak Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue 1990 PTD 29 wherein it was held that the exemption granted under the Sales-tax Act which regulates the levy of sales tax is a separate and distinct enactment. All these facts which occurred prior to the date of Notification issued on 26-6-1988 clearly established that the petitioners had acquired vested rights to the exemption under the prior notification applicable at that time. These acts including the contractual commitments made by them were done on the assurance contained in the prior notification extending the exemption from payment of Sales Tax. A right is created in their favour and subsequent withdrawal of exemption cannot be given retrospective operation by an executive act to discharge that right. This judgment was followed by us in C.P. No.D-929 of 1988 and other connected petitions decided by us on 11-6-1990. As we are in full agreement with the reasons given in those judgments we do not propose to re--write the same here and adopt them for the purpose of supporting the view taken by the Divisional Bench in Crescent Pak Industries (Pvt.) Limited v.
4. Central Board of Revenue etc. 1990 PTD 29.
5. We see no reasons to take a different view in the above cases. We would, therefore, accept the above petitions. In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.