ORDER IHSAN-UL-HAW CHAUDHARY, J.- The relevant facts for the decision of this civil revision are that the petitioner, who is importer of dried coconut, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that memo, dated 28.5.98 issued by C.B.R, respondent No. 1 (S.T. Wing) whereby dried Coconut fit for human consumption was to be treated as "processed food" falling under PCT Head 08.01. And was to be assessed under item B(ii) of Sixth Sche. To S. 13 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was illegal, itwas pleaded that the consignment of the petitioner reached Dr Port, Faisalabad and it was made to pay sale tax on the same. The petitioner moved for its refund but its application was rejected vide memo. No. 10001 dated 26th of September, 1997 with reference to the memo, of the respondent No.
1. The suit was resisted by respondents.
The Trial Court accordingly framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD.
2. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected u/S. 7 rule 11 of CPC? OPD.
3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get' the decree as prayed for? OPP,
5. Relief.
2. Sheikh Abdul Hafiz appeared on behalf of plaintiff as PW-1 and produced copy of the order dated 26th of September, 1997 as Ex. P-1, claim for refund Ex. P2 and copy of notice dated 2nd of August, 1997 as Ex. {P-3. He also tendered letter of C.B.R. Mark-A. Ch. Muhammad Javed Assistant Collector Custom and Taxation appeared as DW-1. He produced letter dated 17th of February, 1998 Ex. D-1, letter of Collector dated 10th of Mary, 1997 Ex. D-2 and copy of the writ petition No. 19865 of 1997 Ex.
D-3. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 27th of February, 1998. The issue No. 3 as to the jurisdiction was decided against the petitioner, who proceeded to file, an appeal which came up on the file of Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khan, Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad, who upheld the finding of the Trail Court on issues No. 3&4 and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 17th of April, 998, now this Civil Revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Civil Court is Court of general jurisdiction and powers vested with it are more than those of the High Court in writ jurisdiction, itis added that since the order of the C.B.R, was against law, therefore, the suit was competent. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to Province of Punjab, through Collector, Faisalabad and 8 others v. Muhammad Yaqoob (1992 CLC 2065), M/s. S. Abdullah & Co. v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi and 2 others (PLD 1992 Karachi 258), Hamid Husain v. Government of West Pakistan and others (1974 SCMR 356), Muhammad Taufail v. Abdu! Ghafoor and others (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 201, Mr. Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 SC 698), Messrs K.G. Traders and another v. Deputy Collector of Customs and 4 others (PLD 1997 Karachi 541) and Kareem Bux v. P.O. Sindh and others (1998 CLC 27). It is added that the dried coconut imported by the petitioner was neither fit for human consumption nor a processed article, therefore, was to be assessed under PTC Head 8.1.10 and not under PTC Head 12.3., therefore, the sale tax could not be imposed, itis argued that it was neither bottled nor canned nor packed, therefore it was not a "processed food" article, itis added that the admission of DW1 in this behalf was ignored by the two courts.
4. On the other hand, Mr. A. Karim Malik, Advocate for the respondents argued that the petitioner could have challenged the assessm ent by respondent No. 2 in an appeal before the Collector Customs (Appeals) and thereafter, he could maintain an appeal before the Custom, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and ultimately it had a right of appeal in the High Court, The same was to be heard at least by a Bench consisting of two judges, itis argued that there being specific remedies provided under the relevant law therefore resort to the Court of general jurisdiction was illegal, itis added that the petitioner has raised the same question in number of writ petitions including writ petition No. 1302 of 1997, which were disposed of with the direction to the Collector Dry Port Faisalabad to pass the formal orders, so the petitioner could avail the remedy before the proper forum under the Customs Act. It is argued that the emphasis has been laid on the letter of the C.N.R. Which was of no consequences.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The admitted position is that the petitioner filed a number of constitutional petitions which were disposed of by this Court with the direction to Collector Customs Dry Port /Faisalabad to pass the orders in accordance with law. The conduct of the petitioner raising the same question in two different forums simultaneously could not be appreciated, itwas a mala fide move.
6. Now coming to the question of jurisdiction. The Sale Act 1990 provides a detailed process for the imposition of the sales tax. The legislature, after making provisions with regard to assessment enacted sections 45 to 47 of the Act, 1990 which provide comprehensive machinery for the redress of the grievance of any party in respect of any other passed under the Act. It was thereafter that Section 51(1) of the Act 1990 barring the jurisdiction of civil Court was enacted. There being a special forum under the relevant law, resort to the Civil Courts is not justified, moreso when the jurisdiction was barred under the provisions contained in Section 51(1) of the Act. It is matter of common knowledge that due to by passing of the proper forum provided under the particular statue on the one had the provisions of the statute are defeated and un-doubt distressed is shown in the forum provided by the law and on the other hand, the Courts are flouted with such matters, itis also one of the main reasons for plotting the judicial system in the country, therefore, time has come where civil Court should not usurp the jurisdiction of the forum as provided under the statute itself, itis in the interest of justice that provision barring jurisdiction of other Court should not be brushed aside lightly, In this behalf reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of The Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. The Sargodha Bhera Bus Service, Sargodha, etc. (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 437). The relevant portion reads as under:- "In their judgment, however the contention that the respondent should appeal before asking for a writ from the High Court has received no consideration, and I consider it to be wrong on principle for the High Court to entertain petitions for writs, except in very exceptional circumstances, when the law provides a remedy by appeal to another Tribunal fully competent to award the requisite relief. Any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court is calculated to create district in statutory tribunals of competent jurisdiction and to cast an undeserved reflection on their honesty and competency and thus to defeat the legislative intent. And in a case of the present kind where the right which the petitioner for a writ claims to vest in him in entirely the creation of a statute, it is all the more imperative on him to exhaust the remedies provided by the statute, before he comes the High Court. He cannot be permitted to say that while he will have one or all the benefits of the statute, he will comply with none of its remedial processes."
The judgment of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd., Tokht Bhai and 10 others (PLD 1975 SC 244) is also relevant, wherein the cases of Mehboob AH Malik v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1963 Lahore 575) and Anjuman-e-Ahmadiya v.
D.C. Sargodha (PLD 1966 SC 639) were examined and the judgment following para of the judgment in the case of Anjuman-e-Ahmadiya supra was quoted with approval:- When the- relief sought for is by its nature one which lends itself to be effectively remedied by orders of the nature contemplated in paragraphs (a), (b) an d (c)) of Sub-Article (2) of Article 98, then the intention of the Constitution appears to be that the remedy granted by the Constitution should be made available to the citizen unless the Court is satisfied that other adequate remedy is provided by law the other adequate remedies provided by law would, in the ordinary circumstances, have reference to the remedies provided by the particular statute itself which has created the right or obligation and not a general remedy at law, as for example by a suit. 0n the other hand, if the remedy sought for is in substance a remedy which is available under the ordinary law then a suit and not the extraordinary remedy under Article 98 should be the appropriate remedy, for, the remedy provided by this Article is not intended to be a substitute for the ordinary forms of legal action. But where this is not the case the remedy by way of a suit can hardly be considered to be an adequate alternative remedy. A suit is by no means as re expensive or speedy or beneficial a remedy as the remedy provided by this Article."
7. The findings of the two courts below are fully justified and are strictly in accordance with law.
Moreover, all these questions could be validly raised in the forum provided under the Customs Act.
The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant in view of provisions of Sales Tax and facts of the case.
8. The upshot of this discussion is that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed with costs.