{{BLUR PAGE}} M/s. Bashir Sons (Pvt.) Limited is running a y bleachiigdyeing and printing unit in Faisalabad. The Central Board or keverfue, in 'exercise of power, vesting in it under section 3(4) of the SalesTaie,Act,1990,'decided to levy and 4o/lect fixed amount of tax in lien. Of sales tax payable by the petitioner. On 17th August, 1991, two Notifications were issued by the Board, first by which the rates of taxation were notified while by second Notification bearnig No 7836)91, laying down for determining liability were promulgated.
2. In this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the grievance of the petitioner is that though fixed tax has been levied,frorn 17th August, 1991I1lielrespondents are demanding payment of fixed tax from 1st July, 1991 onwards.
11"3. In support of this petition, Mian Sitlib'Nisar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contildetErhat as the notification levying fixed tax was'isaued its 17th August, 1991, the respondents cannot demand fixed tax before the kitie especAatly,,whemlie notification_ Artelf does not pumert to be retroaCtively appliiskole, It also argued that 4Aciti4eation.cmmK_beigiven retrospective effect in the absence of any provision to that effect in the statute itself. In support of this contention, learned e'Citil'al'ilas ulkniCorititiiisioner of Sales Tax (West). Karachi v. Messrs ICiuddsons Ltdf1.10474 SC180, KohiNoor Textile Mills Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Iabriieritai:tahore`PLD 1974 itoi SC 284, Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. And others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCM R 1652 and Messrs Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax: Officer, Circle XVIII, South Zone, Karachi and others 1992 SCM R 250.
4. There is considerable merit in the contentioq mused by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from a perusal of two notifications, first by which the fixed tax was levied and second by which rules were promulgated that these notifications have not been given, any retrospective effect and, therefore, it is not Undeistandable as to Wit the respondent can demand payment of tax from a date ear* than the isogon, of tho notifications.
5. It is trite law that a notification which has,tht, effect of imposing liability or obligation cannot operate retrospectively in the absence of any legal sanction in the statute itself. In Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. And others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCM R 1652 Commissioner of Sales Tax (West), Karachi v. Messrs Kruddsons Ltd. PLD 1974 SC 180 and Kohi-Noor Textile Mills Ltd. y. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore PLD 1974 SC 284, it was held by the Supreme Court that a notification which purports to impose a new liability or obligation caratik"operate retrospectively in the absence of any legal Saiettoti.: :"3" 541
6. Fated With 'this tifutititin, learned Standing Confiset litrargued that the tax is being demanded with effect from Ist July, 1991 wittfibb' consent of and in consultation of All Pakistan Textile Processing As.Sociation of which the petitioner is a member. However, nothing has been broughttpn record to substantiate this contention. Even in the parawise comments file4,by the respondents, there is no such assertion.
This argument of the learned Standing Counsel is, therefore, without any factual, basis and cannot be accepted. Furthermore, it is highly doubtful as to whether consent of an association of which petitioner is a member can be made the basis for levying a tax on it. {{BLUR PAGE}}
7. It flows from the above that demand of the respondents for the payment of fixed tax for the prod 1st July, 1990 to 17th August, 1991 is clearly without any lawful authority especially when the notifications themselves do not purport to have any retrospective operation.
For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed and demand of the respondents for payment of fixed tax on, the basis of notification, dated 17th August, 1991 after the period prior to the issuance of notification was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is, however, clarified that it shall be open to the respondents to recover the -sales tax for the period in question under the normal law. No order as to coat .