MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions No.962/92, 963/92 and 964/92 in which similar questions arise for determination.
2. The petitioners are running factories in Distt. Gujranwala where they manufacture goods out of timber, which are exported by them out of Distt. Gujranwala. These goods are being charged export tax under Item No.40 of the Export Schedule notified by respondent No.2 as wooden crosses which action has been called in question in these proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of these petitions, has raised following two contentions.
(I) The goods being exported by the petitioners fall under Item No.10 and not Item No.40 of the Schedule.
(ii) That the Model Schedule prepared by the Provincial Govt, has not been followed by the Zila Council which has notified its own schedule without following the procedure prescribed by rule 10
(2) of the Punjab Local Council (Taxation Rules 1980).
4. Learned Addl. Adv. General has, on the other hand, contended that the goods being produced and exported by the petitioners appropriately fall under heading No.40 of the schedule and have been correctly subjected to payment of tax under that head. Learned Additional Advocate General has maintained that the export tax schedule has been prepared and notified strictly in accordance with law.
5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. The dispute as to whether or not these goods are wooden crosses, is factual in nature and can only be decided after recording evidence. It is not possible to adjudicate upon this question in the exercise of constitutional- jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners may, if so advised, resort to such alternative remedy as may be available to them under the law.
6. Adverting to the second contention, it is to be seen that in the Model Schedule framed by the.
Government there is no entry corresponding to entry No.40 of the schedule announced by the respondents. But this fact is of no much significance inasmuch as, the Zila Council is authorised independently of the instructions of the government by Section 137 of the Punjab Government Ordinance 1979, to impose tax on any of the goods specified in the second schedule. It is also to be noticed according to rule 10 (1) of the Punjab Local Council (Taxation Rules 1980), the model schedule, is framed by the government for the guidance of the local councils. It has obviously no binding effect and of advisory nature.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, relied upon rule (2) 10 to argue that if a departure is made by the Zila Council from the model schedule, a note has to be appended to the taxation proposals by the chairman of the local council. A perusal of rule 10 (2) would show that this provision, which is for the guidance of the local councils, is directory and not imperative in nature especially when no consequence for non-compliance with it has been proved. It cannot be held that merely because a note has not been appended by the . Chairman to the taxation proposal, the tax levied by the Zila Council is illegal.
These petitions have no force and are dismissed in limine.