Tax on manufactured or produced goods—
So far as the manufactured or produced goods are concerned the sales tax becomes payable only when goods are delivered to the purchaser or when the property in the goods passes to the purchaser. Noorani Cotton Corporation Vs. Sales Tax Officer (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 157.

Laws which were in operation before independence in Tribal Areas did not lapse with the Independence Act of 1947 but continued even after that.
The Custom Authorities seized a truck-load of smuggled goods in the tribal area and proceeded against the accused for violating the provisions of section 5(1) of the Land Customs Act, Section 167 (8) (36) and (81) of the Sea Customs Act and section 3(s) of the Sales Tax Act.
On a writ petition, the High Court of West Pakistan held the seizure illegal and in an appeal before the Supreme Court (by the State) question arose whether the aforesaid laws which were in operation in tribal areas before independence were still in operation after the coming into force of the Indian Independence Act of 1947.
Held : The laws of a state or territory do nor disappear by a change in its sovereignty. Law governing or regulating the relations, the rights and obligations of the residents of a acceding territory do not lapse by a mere change in the sovereignty but continues to remain operative until changed by a competent authority.
Moreover, sections 8 and 9 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 extended the power of the Governor-General to tribal areas and in exercise of that power the Governor-General issued Order Nos. 5 and 6 of 1949 to provide for the accession of tribal areas to the territories of Pakistan arid the governance thereof.
Under the Constitution of 1956, by sub-article (2) of Article I the tribal areas which in 1955 were incorporated in the territories of the Province of West Pakistan also became territories of Pakistan but the nomenclature was altered and they were to be known as ‘special area’.
Superintendent, Land Customs Vs. Zewar Khan (1969) 21 DLR (SC) 468.

Sale of ‘partly manufactured goods’ to a manufacturer is not liable to tax.
Under section 3(6)(d) the Sales Tax Officer may determine the value for the tax in a case where the goods are kept for use by the manufacturer and such a transaction is to be regarded as a sale. Noorani Cotton Corp. Vs. Sales Tax Officer (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 157.

Sale of ‘partly manufactured goods’ to a manufacturer is not liable to tax.
What is the device adopted for ensuring that sales-tax is paid only at one stage in spite of what is contained in the charging section making all manufactured goods when they go to the purchaser liable to the payment of tax?
The device adopted as will appear from section 4, is that the sale of “partly manufactured goods” to a manufacturer is not liable to the charge of tax.
The provision in section 4 is that the sale of. goods by a licensed manufacturer to another licensed manufacturer of partly manufactured goods is not liable to the incidence of tax.
Provisions contained in section 4 arc a sufficient guarantee that the tax will be paid only with respect to the last stage of manufacture of goods.
In a case where a manufactured article into which partly manufactured goods arc to be incorporated is for some reason not liable to the payment of sales tax, in such a case no sales tax will need be paid at all.
Noorani Cotton Corporation vs. Sales Tax Officer (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 157.

Exemption from pay- merit of sales-tax as provided under section 4(b) of the S.T. Act— When can be claimed.
Held: Import of raw materials for using in the manufacture of washing soap must be by a licensed manufacturer, Section 4(b) speaks about goods imported by a licensed manufacturer. Similarly section 17(I) speaks about purchases of partly manufactured goods by a licensed manufacturer.
Exemptions as contemplated in section 4(b) and the remedy as provided in section 27(I) are not available to the assessed because he was not a “licensed manufacturer” when partly manufactured goods were imported.
Messer. Haji Noor Ali Sowdagar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1982) 34 DLR (AD) 339.

Notification exempting duty and tax—Legality of subsequent notification and question of estoppel—The notification under section 19 was issued without any condition excepting the "terms and conditions" therein. Subsequent notification taking away exemptions can have no operation when a right had vested in the importer. The importer having acted upon the assurance given, the Government cannot retrace its steps and ask for duty at the rate mentioned in subsequent notification. This is clearly a case of estoppel, the well—settled principle of promissory estoppel. Collector of Customs Chittagong vs A Hannan 42 DLR (AD) 167.

Edible oil, what edible oil is exempt from sale tax.
Such edible oils are exempt from payment of sales-tax as are not included within “vegetable products” in entry 23 of the Notification No. 9 of the Government under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act. Noorani Cotton Corp. Vs. Sales Tax Officer (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 157.

For determining total turnover of any manufacturer, turnover of exempted goods cannot be added to turnover of unexempted goods for the purpose of Notification No. 10 issued under section 8(2) of the Act. Commissioner of Income Tax, E.Pak. Vs. M/s. Ayurvedic Pharmacy Ltd., (1970) 22 DLR (SC) 179.

Expression “mistake apparent on the face of the record” explained.
The expression “Mistake apparent on the face of the record” has been accepted to mean a patent error or an error which is self-evident on the face of the record and does not require argument or evidence or a long drawn process to establish it. Ganesh Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 56 (1979) 31 DLR (AD) 56.