1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---These petitions call in question judgment dated April 21, 2000 passed by High Court of Sindh Karachi originally in Constitutional Petition No,1183 of 1999 filed by Emirates Bank International PJSC alongwith other Constitutional Petitions. In pursuance of said judgment Constitutional Petitions Nos.1033 of 1999 and 1034 of 1999 respectively filed by Bank of Khyber and Bank of Punjab were also disposed of. In the principal judgment provisions of section 11 of Sindh Finance Act, 1964, amendment in it under section 6 read with 7th Schedule of Sindh Finance Act, 1975 and section 5 of the Sindh Finance Act, 1994 empowering the Provincial Government to impose professional tax without putting any limitation on the rate or amount of the tax was declared illegal, ultra vires, without lawful authority and of no legal effect as the same were incomplete disregard and violation of Article 163 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as the "Constitution") and section 2 of the Profession Tax Limitation Act, 1941.
2. As such instant petitions have been filed for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
3. ' We have heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as Mr. Saleem Zulfiqar, Advocate Supreme Court for Emirates Bank International PJSC in C.P. No,538-K of 2000 and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as judgment in the case of Siemen Pakistan Engineering Company Limited v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Punjab PLD 1999 Lahore 244 and the judgment in the case of Bharat Kala Bhandar Limited and another v.
4. Municipal Committee, Dhamangaon AIR 1966 SC 249.
5. ' It may be noted that learned counsel for the respondent in C.P.L.A. No,538-K of 2000 emphatically argued that during hearing of Constitutional Petition Government of Sindh through its Additional Advocate-General (Mr. Munirur Rehman) conceded that the provisions of law are not only violative and in conflict with the provisions of a Federal Statute but Constitution, therefore, after taking such a specific stand before learned High Court the Government of Sindh is estopped to challenge the impugned judgment.
6. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners pointed out at the bar that such statement on behalf of the Government was made unauthorisedly and it appears that the Additional Advocate- General was not fully aware because according to him provisions of Article 163 of the Constitution has explicitly empowered Provincial Legislature to impose professional tax in terms of section 11 of Sindh Finance Act, 1964 as amended from time to time later on. He further contended that even if it is presumed that the representative of the Government had made concessional statement it would not change the position of substantive law, which is always promulgated with a particular object.
7. ' Because the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent would be very relevant at the time of final disposal of the instant case, therefore, we deem it appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow said para. From the judgment:- ' "Mr. Munirur Rehman, learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh, appearing on behalf of the State did not controvert the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and conceded that the amendments made in Section II of the Sindh Finance Act, 1964 firstly, by section 6 of the Sindh Finance Act, 1975 and secondly, by section 5 of the Sindh Finance Act, 1994, were not only violative and in conflict with the provisions of a Federal Statute but also with the provisions of the Constitution, which has imposed limitation on the powers of a Provincial Assembly to impose/levy tax on the various categories of persons engaged in professions, trades, callings and employments mentioned in Article 163 of the Constitution. He further submitted that imposition and/or enhancement of tax over and above Rs,50 was absolutely in disregard and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution as well as the provisions of Professional Tax Limitation Act, 1941 a Federal Statute."
8. Having examined the case from all the legal angles we are of the opinion that it is a case of first impression and also requires interpretation of Article 163 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, therefore, we grant leave to appeal inter alia to examine:--
(i) As to whether under Article 163 of the Constitution Provincial Government of Sindh has no powers to impose tax on trades, professions, callings and employments under section 11 of West Pakistan (Sindh) Finance Act, 1964 as amended vide section 6, 7th Schedule of Sindh Finance Act, 1975 and further amended by section 5 of Sindh Finance Act, 1994; if so, to what effect?
9. ' Learned counsel stated on behalf of respondent Emirates Bank International PJSC that in this case petition filed by Government of Sindh is barred by 79 days. This question is left open for taking into consideration at the time of hearing of appeal in view of the judgments of this Court reported in 1989 SCMR 1621 and 2000 SCMR 367.
10. ' Pending decision of appeals, however, operation of impugned judgment is not suspended and it is observed that if ultimately appeals filed by Government of Sindh succeed the respondents shall pay outstanding as well as future tax accordingly. Therefore, applications for interim stay are dismissed.