' KHALIL-UR-RAHMAN RAMDAY.---This petition is directed against a judgment, dated 12-4-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No, 11645 of 1999 of Multan Bench.
2. The first respondent secured a contract from the respondent Zila Council of Muzaffargarh for the collection of Goods Exit Tax for the period commencing from 16-10-1998 and ending on 30-6-1999.
After expiry of the said period of contract i.e, on 22-11-1999 the respondent Zila Council issued a letter to the respondent-contractor requiring the said contractor to refund an amount of Rs,9,22,110 on the ground that the said amount of money had been illegally collected by the respondent- contractor because the goods in respect of which the said money had been received by the said contractor were meant for export from the country and as such the same were exempted from payment of Goods Exit Tax levied by the Zila Council. The respondent-contractor impugned the said demand through Writ Petition No,11645 of 1999 filed at the Multan Bench of the Lahore High Court. Through the above-mentioned judgment, dated 12-4-2000, now being impugned before us, the Hon'ble Lahore High Court accepted the said petition and declared that the impugned demand being raised through the above-mentioned letter, dated 22-11-1999 was illegal and was of no legal effect.
3. Hence this petition by Messrs Molasses Export Co. Questioningthe said judgment of the Lahore High Court as they were the ones from whom the respondent-contractor had received payment on account of Goods Exit Tax in spite of the fact that the said goods were meant for export out of Pakistan.
4. Confronted with the fact that this petition had been filed 114 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment had been passed in the absence of the petitioner and without notice to it and further that the petitioner came to know of the passing of the impugned judgment through a letter bearing No,34450, dated 15-8-2000 issued by the Assistant Registrar (J.) of the Multan Bench of Lahore High Court through which the petitioner was notified of the passing of the said judgment and that computing the period of limitation from the said date of knowledge, this petition was well within time. The learned counsel added that there was a definite possibility of the judgment in question having been passed in a connected matter i.e, Writ Petition No,7646 of 1999 and of a mistaken mentioning of Writ Petition No,11645 of 1999 on the opening part of the impugned judgment.
5. On the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondent-contractor was not maintainable because rules and the law relating to the grant of contract in question envisaged arbitration between the parties in case of any dispute and even a remedy of appeal was available to the said contractor under the relevant law. The learned counsel further submitted that a similar writ petition bearing Writ Petition No, 10221 of 1998 filed against the same Zila Council of Muzaffargarh had been dismissed by the Lahore High Court through a judgment, dated 25-11-1998 on the ground that the same was not competent in view of the arbitration clause and also because of the fact that a remedy by way of appeal was available to the contractor which remedies had not been exhausted. We were further informed that against this judgment of the Multan Bench of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No, 10221 of 1998 involving similar and identical questions of law, the contractor approached this Court through C.P.
No, 1581 of 1998 which petition had been allowed through an order of this Court, dated 31-12-1998 and leave had consequently been granted. On our inquiry the office informed us that the appeal arising out of the said C.P. No, 1581 of 1998 had since been dismissed for non-prosecution in the month of February, 2002 at which the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this being so the judgment, dated 25-11-1998 passed in Writ Petition No, 10221 of 1998 had attained finality and this was then a case where two contradictory judgments of the Lahore High Court now hold the filed on the similar setof facts involving a similar question of law which warrant grant of leave in the present petition to resolve this contradiction.
6. The learned counsel also argued that the goods being taken out from the District for the purpose of export out of Pakistan had been rightly exempted from the payment of Goods Exit Tax and the respondent-contractor was justifiably asked to refund the amount of the said illegally deducted tax.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined all aspects of the matter we find that the above-noticed questions do deserve deeper consideration.
8. Consequently this petition is allowed and leave is granted to consider the above questions and others. The question of condonation of delay in the filing of this petition shall also be decided at the time of the hearing of appeal.