SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against Judgment dated 24-7-2001, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,4807 of 1991
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a list relating to annual rental value of the property in Sargodha was issued on 13-7-1988. Petitioner-Company feeling aggrieved of the valuation filed an appeal against the assessm ent made in respect of its property, before the District Magistrate. The said appeal was dismissed on 15-10-1988. Then he filed a revision petition against the aforesaid order, which was also dismissed by the Director General, Military Lands and Cantonments Department on 30-3-1991. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, petitioner filed. W.P.
No,4807 of 1991, which, too, was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide impugned judgment dated 24-7-2001. Hence, this petition.
3. Raja. Muhammad Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the Federal Government is not competent to impose property tax; that since the Federal. Government itself did not have the power to levy property tax, Notification S.R.O.
No,121(1)/84 was also unlawful. He further submitted that even under section 60 of the Cantonment Act, a tax imposed under the said section shall take effect from the date of its notification in the official Gazette and that the learned High Court did not consider the case in its true perspective.
4. Mr. Maqbool Ellahi Malik, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that under Article 270-A of the Constitution read with Presidential Order No,13 of 1979 dated 22-8-1979, the Federal Government was empowered to levy and recover property tax on properties falling within limits of Cantonment.
5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on the record as well as the impugned judgment. We have also gone through the above mentioned Constitutional provisions as well as the provisions of Presidential Order No,13 of 1979. The said Presidential Order stands protected by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 270-A of the Constitution even though it may contain provisions, which are not in conformity with the items set out in the Federal Legislative list. Article 3 of the aforesaid Presidential Order provides that the tax leviable under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 shall cease to be leviable in a Cantonment. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are not tenable because the learned High Court has exercised its discretion in accordance with settled norms of justice warranting no interference by this Court. It would be advantageous to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:--
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that the factory of the petitioner had been split up into 31 separate units for the purpose of assessing the annual rental value. According to him, this was not permissible under the provisions of the Cantonments Act. The bifurcation of the petitioner's factory into 31 units had, according to him, increased the demand raised by the Cantonment Board, Sargodha, and that the said action was unauthorized keeping in mind the provisions of section 64 of the Cantonments Act. The said statutory provision defines Annual Value.
In the case of factories a formula has been given to assess such Annual Value. I have gone through the aforesaid statutory provisions and have also examined the record in the light thereof. It is only for the purpose of calculating the cost of construction that various structures, depending on the nature and type of construction, were dealt with separately. This does not have any bearing on the tax liability of the petitioner because the calculation of the Annual Value is in accordance with the provisions of section 64 of the Cantonments Act. The respondent Board has also given due allowance for land which is not _covered by any structure, while assessing the Annual Value. The assessm ent of such value for the purpose of determining the petitioner's tax liability, as such, does not suffer from any legal infirmity."
6. For the foregoing facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, this petition has no merit and substance, which is dismissed and leave declined.