IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Listed appeals, by leave of the Court, are directed against the judgment dated 30th June, 1994, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that appellant-Zilla Council Sialkot' vide a gazette notification dated 13th June 1984 levied tax for the export of goods from the `Zilla' with effect from 1st July, 1984. Relevant entry from the schedule attached thereto for reference is reproduced herein below:- "10. Other manufactured produced and originated products exported from the District."1/-per hundred of the market value."
3. The respondents challenged the above notification by instituting Writ Petitions Nos.3087 and 3521 of 1984, which have been allowed by means of impugned judgment.
4. Learned counsel for appellants contended that tax for the import of goods has been levied by the Zila Council in exercise of powers under section 137 read with section 144 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'Ordinance, 1979') according to which a Local Council has been authorized to levy all or any of the taxes enumerated in the second schedule. It further provides that tax for the export of goods and animals from the Zilla/District can be imposed. Therefore, learned High Court had no lawful jurisdiction to declare the recovery of tax on the export of goods being manufactured/produced by the respondents in the Zillah/District illegal. To elaborate his arguments, he contended that the area of Municipal Committee is situated within the limits of Zilla Council, therefore, artificial distinction drawn by the High Court in the limits of both the Councils i,e, Zilla Council and Municipal Committee is not permissible and the conclusion, on the basis of such premises, needs to be interfered by this Court.
5. Private respondents have been declared ex parte as no one entered appearance on their behalf.
However, despite of it, in the interest of justice, notices were again issued to them vide order dated 12th January, 2004, but position remained same.
6. Mrs. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for official respondent supported the case of Zilla Council by arguing that tax on the export of goods has been levied by the Zilla Council in accordance with the relevant provisions of law on the subject, therefore, High Court ought not to have issued writ petition in favour of private respondents.
7. We have heard parties' counsel and have also considered their respective contentions carefully.
It may be noted that respondents are running their factories within the limits of Municipal Committee Sialkot and they used to transport the goods outside the Zilla/District, therefore, question emerges for consideration that "if the goods are moved from the limits of Municipal Committee Sialkot outside the limits of District Sialkot, whether the Zillah Council would be entitled to charge tax on the export of such goods"?
8. It goes without saying that tax is collected by the administrative functionaries for the benefit of its subject. Essentially, Zilla Council and Municipal Committee deal with the affairs of Rural and Urban areas of a Revenue District. In this behalf section 6(2)(c) of the Ordinance, 1979 provides that "Government may, by notification, declare an area comprising the area of Revenue District, excluding its urban areas and its Cantonment areas, to be a Zillah Council" whereas section 6(2)
(g) provides that "Government may, by notification, declare an area comprising an urban area having a population exceeding 30,000 to be a Municipal Committee". From this definition of both the Local Councils it is manifest that both the Councils are constituted for the purpose of carrying out their respective functions separately within the limits prescribed by the Ordinance, 1979. It is an uncontroverted position that Zilla Council and Municipal Committee enjoy independent jurisdiction of levying tax on their subjects. It may not be out of context to note that in the year 1984, Zilla' as defined under section 3(1x) for the purpose of Ordinance 1979 was "a Revenue District as notified under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967) but excluding Urban areas and Cantonment areas". Therefore, the limits of the `Zilla' were confined only to the extent of Rural areas and it was done so purposely by the legislature to avoid overlapping of jurisdictions of Zilla Councils, Municipal Committees and Cantonment Boards etc. From exercising their respective powers including imposition of tax, otherwise non-excluding of the Urban and Cantonment Areas from the definition of `Zilla' would create administrative problems for smooth functioning of Zilla Council and Municipal Committee. To further elucidate this aspect of the case, reference may be made to the 2nd Schedule Part II and Part III which deal with the subject of taxes of Zilla Council and taxes of Urban and Rural Councils, including Municipal Committee. According to which there are certain common taxes, which are levied by both the Councils, like tax on the transfer of immovable property, fee for licences, sanctions and permissions granted by the Zilla Council, Market fees, rates on the services like water supply, drainage, lighting, etc. Such comparison demonstrates that although Rural and Urban Councils i,e, Zillah Council and Municipal Committee charge tax from their respective subjects belonging to their respective territories but it would never happen that if an person had paid a tax to its Municipal Authorities on the transfer of immovable property, situated within its jurisdiction, the Zilla Council authorities would also demand the tax on the same subject, irrespective of the fact that it is not situated within its territory. Reference at this juncture is to be made to the Punjab Zilla Council Export Tax Rules, 1990. As per Rule 3(1) the limits for collection of export tax shall be the limits of the Zilla Council from the goods, liable to export tax. Admittedly, goods being exported from Urban area i,e, Municipal Committee would not be liable for export tax by Zilla Council in view of the provisions of section 6(2)(c) and (g) of the Ordinance, 1979. It is to be mentioned that as per Item No,7 Part II, tax on the export of goods is to. Be levied, which are being exported from the Zilla/District i,e, excluding Urban areas and Cantonment Areas. In this behalf, the definition of the word 'from' i,e, 'the point of starting' would be relevant. In view of its such definition it can be concluded that the goods, which have started for export from the limits of the municipality, the export tax would not be leviable on it. However, if the starting point of the goods is beyond the limits of the Municipal Committee and is within the limits of Zilla Council, then it can charge export tax on it.
9. We believe that after issuance of notification in 1984, the Provincial Government itself faced difficulty in levying tax on the export of goods, thus to overcome to it, the definition of `Zilla' was substituted by means of Act. I of 1996 (PLJ 1996 (Punjab Statutes) 24 in the following terms:- "(ix) `zila' means the. Revenue District as notified under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967) excluding its urban areas but for purposes of tax on the export of goods and animals the zila, including its urban areas and".
A perusal of above definition had settled the controversy to the effect that prior to promulgation of this Act, tax on the export of goods was not leviable being exported from the limits of the Municipal Committee i,e, Urban area but now for the purposes of tax, there would be no exception between urban or rural areas and Zilla Council would be competent to levy export tax on the goods going outside the Zillah/District either from the limits of the Municipal Committee or from the Zilla Council.
10. On this learned counsel stated that amending Act I of 1996 has retrospective effect as per section 1(2), as it will take effect from 1st July, 1990, therefore, from the said date appellant can levy tax on export of the goods. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment reported as Zilla Council, Jhang v. Daewoo Corporation 2001 SCM R 1012 wherein its applicability has been accepted retrospectively.
11. In this context it may be noted that as per the interpretation, a fiscal statute ordinarily would operate prospectively unless by express enactment or necessary intendment retrospective operation has been given to it. Zakaria H.A. Sattar Bilwani v. Inspecting Additional Commissioner 2003 SCM R 271. In another judgment rendered by a full Bench of this Court in the case of Molasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 SCM R 1905 this Court has observed that the legislature, which is competent to make a law, has full plenary powers within its sphere of operation to legislate retrospectively or retroactively. In view of this pronouncement, we feel no difficulty to hold that as the definition of the word `Zilla' under section 6(2)(c) of the Ordinance, 1979 has extended with effect from 1st July, 1990 for the purpose of levy of tax on the export of goods, therefore, from the said date onwards Zilla Council, Sialkot had competency to recover the tax on the export of the goods and prior to it, from 1st July, 1984, no such tax was recoverable from the private respondents.
Thus appeal stands disposed of with the conclusion drawn herein above. Parties are left to bear their own costs.