1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner, who has given contract to collect octroi on the import of goods within the territorial jurisdiction of Union Council Ibrahim Hyderi during the period from 1-7-1991 to 30-6-1992, has called in question the Notification issued by the Government of Sindh, Housing, Town Planning, Local Government and Rural Development Department dated 31-3-1986, whereby respondent No,3 has been exempted from paying of octroi on the goods imported within the said area. The said Notification reads as under:-- "RDD/AW-1-33/81.--In supersession of this Department Notifications of even number dated 1-3-1983 and 29-10-1983 and in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 137 read with item 11 of Appendix 'C' of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Octroi) Rules, 1964, the Government of Sindh are pleased to direct that the goods imported by the Export Processing Zones Authority and Industrial Undertakings established/being established within the boundaries of Karachi Export Processing Zones shall, subject to a certificate issued by the Authority in that behalf, be exempted from the payment of Octroi tax.
2. (Sd.)
3. MANZOORUL HASAN, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH."
4. ' Mr. Ghulam Hussain Abbasi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon two judgments of the Supreme Court and one judgment of this Court, namely, the judgments given in the case of M/s. Chandio and Tahrani Food Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh and others (Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,205- K/1991), State Cement Corporation of Pakistan v.
5. M/s. Abdullah & Co. (Civil Appeal No,39-K/1984) and Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh v. Government of Sindh and others (PLD 1991 Kar 372). The ratio of the said judgments is that under section 62(1)(c) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the Provincial Government is empowered only to suspend or abolish the levy of any tax in respect of a particular person or corporation.
6. Consequently, the Government of Sindh was not empowered to issue the said Notification granting exemption to respondent No,3 from payment of octroi duty. So far as the above proposition of law is concerned, Mr.Naimur Rahman has very candidly conceded that respondent No,1 was not empowered under the law to issue the impugned Notification dated 31-3-1986. The learned counsel has nevertheless contended that by virtue of the provisions of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, the said Authority is a local Authority with a local fund and, therefore, it was outside the territorial limits of Union Council Ibrahim Hyderi (respondent No, 2)..
7. ' So far as the question raised by Mr.Naimur Rahman is concerned, we are of the view that the same can be agitated by respondent No,3 even outside this petition. The petitioner in this petition has only sought a declaration from this Court that the said Notification dated 31-3-1986 was issued without lawful authority and the same is, therefore, of no legal effect. The petitioner has further sought a declaration that respondent No,3 or anyone claiming through it is liable to pay octroi to the petitioner on account of the said Notification being without lawful authority. We are clearly of the view that in view of the concession made by Mr. Naimur Rahman, and in our opinion rightly so, it is not necessary for us to enter into any further controversy on the other questions raised by Mr.Naimur Rahman which can be separately agitated by respondent No,3 by filing of a Constitutional Petition, if they so choose.
8. ' In the result, subject to the observations just made by us in this judgment, this petition is allowed and the Notification dated 31-3-1986, issued by respondent No,1, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legel effect: ' In view of the fact that respondent No,3 intends to contest the authority of respondent No,2 to collect octroi on the goods imported within the area allotted to respondent No,3 and in view of the undertaking given by respondent No,3 to the petitioner that in the event of the present petition being granted, the said respondent would pay the amount due to the petitioner which became due for payment on account of the octroi during the period in question, we order that our judgment shall not take effect for 14 days, within which Mr. Naimur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner intends to file another petition on behalf of respondent No,3.
9. ' The parties are left to bear their own costs.