' RAZA AHMAD KHAN, J.---The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by way of this writ petition, whereby the impugned order 'of respondent No,1, adjudicating the matter before him, the appellate order of respondent No,2 dated 26-7-1986 and revisional order of respondent No,3 dated 13-1-1988 are called into question.
2. The petitioner, who runs a music center, dealing in Audio Cassettes was ordered to pay Sales Tax amounting to Rs,19,358 on the cassettes sold up to 17-8-1982 under section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) initially as per order of the Deputy Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Peshawar, dated 28-1-1984 and later, after remand, vide his order, dated 29-5-1986.
Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Collector (Appeals) and thereafter filed a revision before the Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan, but all these efforts of his proved abortive as indicated above in the preceding para. Hence the instant petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Tasleem Hussain, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, learned Deputy Attorney-General for the Collector as also perused the available record with considerable degree of care.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the plea of the petitioner rather consistently has been that he would purchase the master copy and then, by transforming its subject to the ordinary cassettes, would afterwards sell the copies thereof and as such he does not fall within the definition of "manufacturer" as defined in section 2(11) of the Act, and consequently not liable to charge of the Sales Tax. He, however, maintained that none of the forums below have taken the said plea into consideration nor applied their minds to this aspect of the case and accordingly, having fallen in error in fact as well as in law, these impugned orders are liable to be set aside on this score alone.
5. Learned Deputy Attorney-General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that both the learned appellate as well as the revisional forums when giving a finding against the petitioner, holding him as liable to pay the Sales Tax, though not in many words, yet did take into consideration the aforementioned plea of the petitioner. According to him, such being the case, the impugned orders do not merit interference.
6. We have given our serious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective pleas.
7. A perusal of the record would reveal that while the impugned order of the Adjudicating Officer, dated 29-5-1986 has precluded, and rightly too, the master copies of the cassettes from the sales tax to be levied on the petitioner, on the ground that the sales tax of the said cassettes was already paid thereon; he, without entering into further discussion, held the cassettes prepared from the master copies as, taxable under the law.
8. Again, at the appellate stage, para 5 of the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 26- 7-1986 although does mention the plea of the petitioner, yet, we find that the same had hardly been discussed by him as such. Similarly the revisional authority while dealing with the said plea almost blind folded followed the suit in arriving at its conclusions.
9. All this would clearly indicate that there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in that, save finding the petitioner as manufacturer, there has been no reason advanced as to how a person transforming the subject-matter from the master cassettes to the copy cassette can be held as manufacturer within the meaning of clause (11) of section 2 of the Act, so as to have afforded an opportunity to us to have examined as to how far the reasons so given in support of their finding have the elements of rationality and thus in accord with the law as contained in section 2(11) ibid.
10. It hardly needs to be emphasised that respondents 1 to 3 constitute quasi-judicial tribunals and the superior Courts expect of them to act judicially as well as judiciously. Their orders ought strictly to conform to the judicial norms in that while giving a finding on a question of fact or law, they must furnish reasons in arriving thereat and again the reasons should be in consonance with the spirit of law, which they are enforcing, blended with such sense of justice xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx an affected person, that their decisions are prompted by or motivated from departmental expediencies. We regretfully observe that this principle of administering justice apparently is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned orders of the respondents and appeared to have not been kept in view by any of the tribunals in passing the impugned orders.
11. Resultantly, we feel constrained to set aside the impugned orders of the respondents 2 and 3 and remand the case back to respondent No,2 to decide it afresh after affording the petitioner ample opportunity of being heard. The parties shall be at liberty to press into service any matter other than the one discussed above which may be helpful in arriving on the whole, at all just decision of the case.
12. The respondents shall pay a sum of Rs,1,000 collectively to the petitioner as special costs.