1. MAMOON KAZI, J.--The petitioner is aggrieved by withholding of reward by the respondents in pursuance of Notification issued by the Government of Pakistan, SRO 603(1)/73 dated 24-4-1973.
2. This Notification indicates that persons giving information leading to the seizure of smuggled goods or goods in respect of which an attempt to smuggle them out of or into the country has taken place and the persons giving information leading to detection of evasion of Customs duty shall be entitled to payment of reward according to the scale provided in the said notification. It may be pointed out that the petitioner is a person who provided information to the respondents leading to detection of evasion of Customs duty. According to the said scale as provided for in the notification, such persons would be entitled to half of the admissible reward immediately after seizure of such goods as referred to in the said notification. Clause 8 of the notification further indicates the in case of the information leading to detection of evasion of Customs duty, the same scale of reward shall be mutatis mutandis applied. Admittedly, the petitioner's case falls under :clause 8 of the Notification.
3. Although there is no controversy in regard to the fact that the information supplied by the petitioner led to the detection of evasion of Customs duty but the main objection raised on behalf of the respondents is that the amount of the reward would be payable only after adjudication/prosecution of the proceedings before the Customs Authorities had been finalized and the amount in question is credited to the Government of Pakistan.
4. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Lari, Advocate for the petitioner, on the other hand has contended that the petitioner immediately became entitled to such reward after information was supplied by him.
5. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner upon Customs General Order No.7/88 dated 2-3- 1988 issued by the Government of Pakistan through Central Board of Revenue which indicates that:-- "In cases of detection of fraudulent claim of rebate, the value of the goods under rule 3 of the Reward Order, 1973, for the purpose of determining the admissible reward shall be the amount of duty and other taxes which were being claimed as rebate."
6. A plain reading of the relevant SRO indicates that in case of seizure of goods which are smuggled or in respect of which an attempt to smuggle them either out of or into the country has taken place, the reward should be payable after seizure of the goods (see clause 5 of the notification).
7. Although. Clause 8 of the notification provides that the same scale of reward shall be applicable to cases of information leading to the detection of evasion of Customs duty but no similar provision is made in clause 8 of the notification as provided in case of smuggled goods in clause 5. Reference to the said Customs General Order dated 2-3-1988 also fails to render much help in this regard as would appear from paragraphs No.2 thereof, reproduced earlier in this order.
8. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Lari has placed reliance upon the case of Regional Commissioner Income Tax Companies II Karachi and others v. Sultan Ali Jeoffery and another (1993 SCM R 266) wherein, under somewhat similar circumstances, it was held by the Supreme Court, that under relevant Scheme informer was to be rewarded for furnishing information leading to the detection of evasion of Income Tax, therefore, the department was not justified in, imposing any condition that such information should also lead to the recovery of tax evaded. However, the case decided by the Supreme Court appears to be distinguishable because according to the said Scheme half of the admissible reward appears to have been made payable immediately after competition of assessm ent and the balance after the Tax sought to be evaded was finally recovered. It appears that in the case decided by the Supreme Court such condition had been satisfied. In the present case although it has been pointed out that final adjudication has taken place and penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs (Exports) is to be recovered from the defaulters in pursuance of the said order, but the learned Deputy Attorney-General has pointed out that such penalty is still to be recovered from the defaulters. Therefore, his contention is that unless such penalty has been recovered the petitioner would not be entitled to payment of reward. In our view the learned Deputy Attorney-General appears to be right. There is no specific provision made in the said notification in respect of cases of detection of evasion of Customs duty as had been made in case of seizure of smuggled goods. However, it would be absurd to assume that in absence of any express provisions, the amount of reward would be payable to the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the amount in respect of which evasion was committed has not yet been credited to the Government of Pakistan. Although no such specific condition has been provided in the notification but on an analogy the case of the petitioner cannot be treated differently from the case of a person who gives information in regard to the seizure of smuggled goods. The intention appears to be that the information supplied by a person should lead to some advantage in material terms to the national exchequer. In our opinion, it would be erroneous to assume in the present case that the amount of reward would be payable even if the amount of duty evaded. Has not yet been credited to the Government of Pakistan.
9. In the result, we are of the view that this petition has been filed prematurely. The petitioner, no doubt,' would be entitled to the payment of reward in accordance with the terms of the said notification in case the conditions provided for in the notification are satisfied, provided that the amount in question had been credited to the Government of Pakistan. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed in limine.