Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 3(b),3(2)(b),3(6),8(1)(b),13(2)(a),4(c), 3(2)(b),3(6),8(1)(b),71

Law: Code of Civil Procedure of 1882

Section: 27A

Law: Rules of Business (Federal), 1973

Section: 3,5

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 37(1),37(5),41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5 0,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63 ,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,73,74,75, 76,77,78,79,80,90,90(3),91,91(6),92,93,9 4,95,96,9

JUDGMENT MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J:- These appeals with the leave of the Court entail the following facts:- the appellants are importers of cellular phones and textile goods. Earlier they enjoyed certain exemptions from sales tax granted by the Federal Government. Subsequently the exemptions were either withdrawn or the tax rates were modified vide notifications No.280(I)/2013, 460(I)/2013 (both relating to cellular phones) issued pursuant to Sections 3(2)(b), 3(6), 8(1)(b), 13(2)(a) and 71 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (the Act), and 682(I)/2013 (relating to textile goods) issued under Sections 4(c), 3(2)(b), 3(6), 8(1)(b) and 71 of the Act dated 4.4.2013, 30.5.2013 and 26.7.2013 respectively. Aggrieved of this withdrawal and/or modification (in the rate) of sales tax, the appellants challenged the same through constitution petitions before the learned Islamabad High Court on the primary ground that such notifications had not been issued by the Federal Government in accordance with Section 3 of the Act. The petitions were dismissed by the learned High Court through a consolidated judgment. The Intra-Court Appeals (ICA) initiated by the appellants also failed (note:- some constitution petitions were decided through the impugned judgment in ICA). Leave in these matters was granted to consider inter alia the following points:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners while attacking the impugned judgment of the learned Division Bench of the High Court affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge-in-Chambers submits that the petitioners have no cavil to the proposition that the Federal Government does have the power, jurisdiction and authority to issue the notification, however his argument is that the notifications in question dated 4.4.2013 and 30.5.2013 challenged in the constitution petitions were not issued by the Federal Government rather by the Additional Secretary who was not competent to do so. It is also submitted that to grant the exemption is only the privileged authority of the Cabinet as per the provisions of Article 90 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and even the Secretary or Advisor to the Prime Minister has no competence to…