' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 12-11-1998 passed by Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No,1169 of 1997.
2. Petitioner, a private limited company, is manufacturing carpets in the factory located at Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate, Swabi. The Government of Pakistan in order to encourage setting up of new industries at Gadoon Amazai had granted exemption of customs duty and sales tax vide Notification No,S.R.O.517(1)/1989, dated 3-6-1989, on the raw material imported for said industrial units. This exemption was later withdrawn on 9th May, 1991. However, on the recommendations made by Economic Coordination Committee of the Cabinet one time relief allowing 25% of total duty value to import raw material for one year was extended to all the existing industrial units which were under production in Gadoon Amazai. Whereas the industrial units which had not yet commenced its production 25% compensation/relief was calculated on the production capacity assessed by Sarhad Development Authority subject to verification by Central Board of Revenue.
The decision of E.C.C. Of the Cabinet, dated 31-3-1992 was communicated to Ministry of Industry, and C.B.R. Towards 12th April, 1992.
3. It may be seen that on the representation of petitioner respondent No,1 (Secretary, Survey and Rebate, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad) granted them 25% compensation/rebate on one time basis for a period of one year only vide Letter C.No,1 (75) S&R-2/90(B), dated 29th March, 1995 specifying the conditions of availing said benefit. Petitioner was unable to import raw material within specified period and sought further extensions which were granted by respondent vide Letters (i) 1(75)S&R-2/90(B), dated 25-7-1996 and (ii) C.No,1(75)S&R-2/90(B), dated 23-9-1996 expiring by 31-12-1996 petitioner could not exhaust prescribed quota within stipulated period therefore, on 28th December, 1996, again written request was made seeking extension of period to avail benefit of 25% compensation/rebate. This time request was rejected through Letter No,1(75)S&R-2/90(B), 29th April, 1997. Petitioner had challenged above order regarding refusal to extend the period for availing benefit of 25% compensation through Writ Petition No,1169 of 1997 before Peshawar High Court. The petition was, however, dismissed on 12-11-1998. Operative portion of the judgment reads thus:- "12. Some of the extension in time granted to other industrial units show that time had been extended up to the maximum of 4 years. But those units were granted the relief soon after it was announced in the year 1992. On the other hand, the petitioners before us applied for and given the relief on different dates in the years 1995 and 1996. Since a number of applications were being made to the Central Board of Revenue by the industrial units in Gadoon Amazai for enhancement of quota and extension of time for import of the raw material, the Board decided not to entertain such applications after 30-4-1997; by which time they had already started refusing extension of time. As the C.B.R. Was competent to extend time, it had also the power to refuse it. The policy by which enhancement of the quota and extension of time limitation was brought to an end is not unreasonable. The plea of discrimination does not hold ground because after the policy no extension Of time had been given to any industrial unit. Cases of extension of longer period in the past cannot be pressed into service to make out a case of discrimination because, as stated above, those units were granted the concession much earlier than the petitioner and the extensions were made for specified reasons. This ground of the petitioner, thus, also fails.
13. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the decision of the Central Board of Revenue not to allow extension of time for the import of raw material under the 25% relief was not illegal and, therefore, not liable to be set aside. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed, with no orders as to costs."
' The above decision of the High Court has been assailed through present petition for leave to appeal.
4. Mr. Farooq Adam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, emphatically urged that the industrial unit of petitioner was entirely new set up. It has commenced production during 1994-95 and was confronted with multiple problems, therefore, compensatory quota of importing raw material could not be availed within specified period. Learned counsel convassed that despite persuation respondent had granted extension only for short periods, wherein it was not practicable to make effective arrangements for importing requisite quantity of raw material. According to him period of one year specified in original letter providing 25% compensation on the imported raw material did not disclose the time to be essence of facility granted to petitioner, therefore, he greatly stressed that refusal of respondent in extending period was arbitrary and unlawful.
5. We have carefully examined the record in the light of above submissions. It may be seen that original letter, dated 29th March, 1995 issued by respondent No,1 expressly mentions period of one year for availing 25% relief on one time basis. Therefore, firstly, petitioner could not claim extension of time as of right. Secondly, objection about time being not the essence of availing benefit of 25% compensation was, admittedly, not agitated before the High Court. As such on the settled principles new pleas which were not raised before High Court cannot be gone into by this Court. For authority reference can be made to observations in PLD 1991 SC 640 (Mst. Neelam Nawaz v. The State).
6. Thirdly, it is quite manifest that petitioner on four occasions had applied for extension of time for availing the facility granted by means of letter, dated 29-3-1995 (supra). This aspect implies that petitioner being fully conscious about time span for utilization of above benefit has repeatedly sought extension of period. Therefore, objections that time was no essence for the performance of obligation automatically loses significance.
7. Lastly, record reveals that respondents have shown sufficient indulgence in granting period for utilization of quota upto 31-12-1996. There does not appear any arbitrariness or discriminatory treatment of concerned authorities in refusing to grant further extension. Obviously when administrative discretion does not reflect any perversity unreasonableness, discrimination, arbitrariness or misexercise of authority same cannot be legitimately challenged by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction. Therefore, Peshawar High Court was quite justified in declining to interfere with said decision of the respondent.
' For the above reasons, we find that present petition is without any substance, which is accordingly dismissed and leave prayed for is rejected.