NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.---Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset states and we will agree that the issues raised in this appeal already stand resolved by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court now reported as re: Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Superintendent, Intelligence and Investigation (2002 PTD 632).
2. On consideration-of various arguments addressed with regard to the legal validity of the two S.R.Os. involved, it was finally concluded as under:--- "In view of our findings hereinbefore, we partially accept these appeals and hold that the Tribunal was not vested with any jurisdiction to hold that S.R.O. No.207(I)/98 as amended vide S.R.O. No.751(I)/2000 is ultra vires and to that extent the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal by the Revenue is accordingly accepted. We further hold that the S.R.O. No.751(I)/2000 was merely an amending S.R.O. which brought about an amendment in the original S.R.O. No.207(1)/98 it being beneficial in nature could be retrospective as well to that extent. Thirdly, we hold that the benefit of fixation of value under S.R.O. No.207(I)/98 was only confined to the sales tax as contemplated under section 3(1) and it was not available in case of further tax which was chargeable under section 3(1A)." 3.
Accordingly this appeal is also dispdsed of in terms of the above operative part of that judgment. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.