JUDGMENT: MR. MUHAMMAD ASLAM, TECHNICAL MEMBER,--I. Facts leading to the case are that while conducting the audit of the appellants' records, the staff of Central Excise and Sales. Tax, Gulberg Division found that the sales tax has been paid by the appellants according to the amended rate with effect from 1.7.1992 contrary to the fact that the same was effective from 1.10.1992. It was observed that SRO 148(I)/92 dated 2.3.1992 was amended w.e.f 1.10.1992 to the effect that the figure of 1150 in paragraph under the heading 1992-93 (S. No. 5) was substituted by the figure 1250 vide SRO 946(I)/92 dated 30.9.1992. The appellants were, therefore, alleged to have short paid sales tax amounting to Rs. 12,13,040. The appellants were, therefore, charged with contravention of section 6 and 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Deputy Collector of Sales Tax-I, Lahore, while adjudicating the case ordered payment of sales tax amounting to Rs. 12,13,040 alongwith additional tax and surcharge. Besides determining the aforesaid liabilities penaIty of Rs. 5,000 was also imposed on the appellants.
2. While pleading their case before Collector, Appeals, Central Zone, Lahore, the appellants contended that the entry of substitution of the figure of 1250 in place of 1150 made on 30.9.1992, was in fact of a corrective nature and a corrigendum in essence right from the beginning of financial year 1992-93 to the mother notification No. SRO 148(I)/92 dated 2.3.1992, which was already on the Statue book. As the Learned Adjudicating Officer had not bothered to see the case in correct legal perspect, the appellants pleaded that the orders passed at the original stage needed to be set aside so that they could be spared of an unwarranted liability illegally determined against them.
3. The Learned Collector, Appeals, Central Zone, Lahore, refused to accommodate them and confirmed the orders already passed in the matter which are now the subject appeal before the Tribunal.
4. The appellants contend that hardly anyone tried to understand the contents of the main notification No. SRO 148(I)/92 dated 2.3.1992 and the amending SRO No. 946(I)/92 dated 30.9.1992 and went ahead to over burden them with a liability of sales tax etc., which is not tenable in the eye of law. Their stand is that the amending notification dated 30.9.1992. Did not introduce any change in the rate of sales tax which remained pegged at Rs. 375 per ton all through as earlier fixed vide Governments notification dated 2.3.1992 but merely clarified that the presumptive monthly production for the whole financial year would be worked out on the basis of 1250 units of electricity and not 1150 as specified.
5. The Departmental Representative, Mr. Naseer, Superintendent, Sales Tax, maintains that the interpretation accorded to the aforesaid two notifications by the appellants is not only erroneous but also confusing and misleading. His contention is that from lst July to 30th September, 1992, production has to be worked out by dividing total number of units of electricity consumed month- wise the figure of 1150 and thereafter for the remaining nine months the relevant figure would be 1250 because the amending notification was not given retrospective effect. He further maintains that the Department did not at any point victimize anyone and merely acted to safe-guard the interest of State Exchequer.
6. The point to be sorted out in this case is whether or not the appellants were justified in working out their monthly production by dividing total units of electricity consumed with the figure of 1250 for the whole financial year or would be only for the period from October 1992 to June, 1993? Perusal of notification No. SRO 148(I)/92 dated 2.3.1992 is very relevant to understand legal implications/remifications which follow thereafter when it is viewed in the context of the amended notification dated .30.9.1992. In this notification, in column 3 whatever the figure (1150 or 1250), it had to be for the whole financial year and not with effect from such and such date as wrongly maintained by the Department. The amendment introduced on 30.9.1992 was, in fact, a corrigendum in essence which merely substituted/corrected the figure of 1150 with 1250 but did not change the legal status of the main notification which was already there in the field and by virtue of which production had to be calculated month-wise for the whole financial year starting from July, 1992.
7. The Departmental would have been hundred per cent justified in raising the demand if the rate of Sales Tax was changed or it was specified in the amending notification dated 1992. As neither of the two happened, the appellants were under no legal obligation to pay sales tax as demanded by the Department.
8. Sum total of the aforesaid discussion is that the appellants had been making correct payment of sales tax in the instant case and that the liabilities worked out by the Department are not maintainable on factual or legal grounds. That being so, we set aside the order appealed against and accept the appeal. As a result thereof, nothing is due from the appellants as far as the present case is concerned. Here we shall also like to say that the action taken by the Department against them, was arbitrary, one-sided and not based on facts, logic or reasoning. Our advice to all concerned is that, come what may, they must always adhere to the basic norms of justice and fair-play and not fall victim to temporary considerations/pressures.