COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Versus MEKRAN FISHRIES LTD.

1. NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J .--This case relates to assessment year 1971-72. The question for determination in this case is about application of notification SR 51 (R) dated 1-7-1961 issued under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act,1951. The question for our opinion in this application under section 17 (2) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 is as follows:

2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax. Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that goods d manufactured by the assessee and sold to the other party locally who exported the same, are exempt in the hands of the assessee company under Sales Tax Notification No. SRO 51 (R) dated 1-7-1961.

3. We have heard Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the department and Mr. Ali Athar, learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee.

4. It is submitted by Ali Athar, learned counsel for the assessee, that identical question has been answered in the following three reported judgments of this Court

(i) Adam Limited v. Commissioner of income-tax (1967) 16 Taxation 97.

(ii) H. Nizamuddin & Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1983 PTD 108.

(iii) Hussain Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1983 PTD 114.

5. Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the department, submits that no doubt identical question has been answered in the aforesaid judgments but the assessee was liable to pay sales tax on the goods sold to the local exporter, and, after actual export of goods, reimbursement of sales tax could have been claimed.

6. On perusal of the record we find that no such point had been raised before the Income-tax Tribunal. In any case it is an admitted position hat tie goods have in fault been exported in the present case and the question raised in this case already stood answered in the there reported judgments referred to by Mr. Ali Athar Advocate for the assessee. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid three judgments of -is Court on the interpretation of the Notification dated 1-7-1961.

7. As a result the question referred in this case is also answered in the affirmative.

8. M.B.A./5174 Question answered in affirmed.