NASIM 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) + (2002 PCTLR 587).
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 SRO No. 207(I)/98, as amended vide SRO No. 751(l)/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 SRO No. 751(0/2000 was merely an amending SRO which brought about an amendment in the original SRO No. 207(0/98 it being beneficial in nature could be retrospective as well to that extent. Thirdly, we hold that the benefit of fixation of value under SRO No. 207(0/98 was only be 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! I A),"
3. Accordingly this appeal is also disposed of in terms of the above operative part of that judgment.