' This petition has been moved on behalf of Multan Flour Mills Association through Sh. Kashif Zafar, its Member who according to him was specially authorised to file this writ petition. A copy of authority letter has been annexed as Annexure "A". Three others Writ Petitions bring Nos.1500, 525 of 1997 and 7090 of 1996 involving similar question of law have been disposed of with the observation that the dispute be referred to Arbitrator in accordance with the agreement executed in between the petitioners in those writ petitions and the Zila Councils.
2. Through this petition a writ has been sought to be issued directing respondent Zila Council Multan not to charge goods exit tax on the wheat flour because the same has been exempted from the exit tax. In the aforesaid writ petitions the Contractors/Lease-holders had submitted that they were entitled to charge goods exit tax on the basis of the schedule which was in force at the time of executing agreement in their favour. Since the tax had been levied by the District Council, therefore, the Government of Punjab was not authorised to revise or modify the same. After hearing detailed arguments from both sides it has been held following an earlier decision of this Court in W.P. No,639 (PLD 1997 Lah. 533) of 1995 titled as "Dandot Cement Company v. D.C./Collector" that the Government has the power and authority to direct District Council to levy the tax and also to modify or abolish the same.
3. In view of the finding given in the writ petitions the main question raised by the petitioner relating to collection of tax on the basis of old schedule has been answered. It has been observed that the contractors/lease-holders are entitled to charge tax only on the basis of the revised schedule and in case tax or levy has been abolished or any goods have been exempted from the tax, the contractors/lease-holders are not authorised to charge the same, as such, controversy with regard to charging to tax and payment of tax for the goods which have been exempted from tax although stand resolved yet the dispute had to be referred to the Arbitrator to determine as to what was the actual losss accrued to the contractors/lease-holders and how they are to be compensated. Similarly if contractors/lease-holders have been charging tax in excess of their entitlement, the Zila Council will be entitled to adjust the same. In the present petition also to finally resolve the dispute as to what amount of tax has been paid (if at all the same has been done) in excess of the prescribed rate of tax and similarly if the contractor/lease-holder has been charging tax during the period when the same had been exempted, even then the same will have to be adjusted. As regards collection of tax on the goods on which it has been exempted, it has been observed above that the same cannot be charged from them either by the Zila Council or by the contractor/lease-holder. However, considering that the contractor/lease-holder as according to the petitioner had been receiving tax even after the same had been abolished, an enquiry will have to be conducted to ascertain as to what amount has been charged and how the same has to be adjusted. Therefore, propriety demands that this writ petition should also be referred to the Arbitrator which will be heard alongwith the aforesaid three writ petitions which stand referred to the Arbitrator.
4. This petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.