MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J. - This judgment shall dispose of W.P. Nos. 9052/2000, 8786/2000, 8787/2000, 8788/2000, 8792/2000, 8796/2000, 8808/2000, 8812/2000, 8817/2000, 8789/2000, 8793/2000, 8797/2000, 8809/2000, 8813/2000, 8818/2000, 8790/2000, 8794/2000, 8806/2000, 8810/2000, 8815/2000, 13141/2000, 8791/2000, 8795/2000, 8807/2000, 8811/2000, 8816/2000, 13142/2000, 22363/2000, 20087/2000, 20079/2000 and 23796/1999 in all of which common questions of law are involved.
2. The petitioner has challenged a notice issued to it by respondent No. 1 intimating that the petitioner was in default in terms of Section 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and that a sum of Rs.20493/- was recoverable from it. However, it has also been stated in the notice that if the petitioner has any objection in this respect he may produce his books of account and produce documentary evidence on 30.4.2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the petitioner is an exporter-cwm- manufacturer the provisions of Section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were not applicable to it in view of clause 37-A of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed this proposition of law. He, however, says that the petitioner was liable to deduct the tax in respect of the activities not connected with exports, In reply learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is involved in export only and there is no other taxable activity. This is a question of fact and therefore, it appears to be essential that this aspect of the matter in the first instance be examined by respondent No. 1 before whom such an objection has been raised.
Ln view of the above, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the question as to whether the petitioners are engaged in any other business or activity relating to purchase not connected with export.
No order as to costs.