' RANA BHAGWAN DAS; J.---This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment dated 18-5- 2000 rendered by a learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, whereby Constitutional petition preferred by respondent-company was accepted and the imposition of customs duty and sales tax on the import of machinery, equipment and other items for setting up Fauji Cement Factory was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Respondent-company imported plant machinery and equipment under Import Licence No,W 403036 dated 15-7-1993 after obtaining no objection certificate vide letter dated 29-5-1993 from the Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, cretifying that the items contained in the annexed list were being not manufactured locally. The stand point of the Petitioners, however, appears to be that apart from S.R.O. 484(1)/92, dated 14th May, 1992 exempting plant and machinery which was not manufactured locally and imported during period between 1st December, 1990 and 30th June, 1995, Central Board of Revenue vide letter, dated 9th March, 1996 had published a list of machinery and equipment manufactured locally addressed to the Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi, advising him to recover the duty and taxes on items identified as manufactured locally. It is the case of the petitioner that the equipment imported by respondent company for which letter of credit was established on or about 6th October, 1984 included the items manufactured locally and were thus not exempt from payment of duty and 'taxes as wrongly accepted by the High Court. From the record it appears that learned High Court heavily relied upon judgment of a Division Bench passed in Writ Petition No,583 of 1995 in M/s. Lucky Cement Limited v. Central Board of Revenue and others.
3. It is vehemently contended that the judgment in Lucky Cement Limited has been impugned in a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal before this Court at the Principal Seat; that even otherwise the High Court wrongly applied the ratio of the judgment rendered by Peshawar High Court; that the High Court misread the S.R.O. 484(1)/92, dated 14th May, 1992 and S.R.O. 286/1/84, dated 4th April, 1984 and did not correctly apply the principle of locus poenitentiae as contemplated by section 21 of the General Clauses Act and doctrine of promissory estoppel propounded in Al-Samrez Enterprise v. Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCM R 1917).
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal to examine the aforesaid contentions and related questions with a view to ensure whether the principles of law laid down by this Court on the subject have been rightly adhered to?