' This civil revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree, dated 10-2-1999 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No,1 against the judgment and decree dated 27-6-1998 was accepted.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief challenging the levy of Octroi tax by respondent No,1 for the year 1997 on the ground that such imposition was in violation of Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980 inasmuch as the taxation proposal for the impugned Octroi tax was neither prepared for the relevant year nor the preliminary taxation proposal published or objection invited.
3. Respondents entered appearance and submitted their written statement.
4. On the divergent pleading of the parties, issues were framed and evidence led. Whereafter learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner, vide judgment and decree dated 27-6-1998.
5. Being aggrieved the respondent filed an appeal, which was accepted by the First Appellate Court, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 10-2-1999.
6. Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this petition has also been perused.
7. It is evident from the record and not disputed between the parties that on the 24th of May, 1996, a notice was published in the Press informing the public at large that the Octroi Tax would be increased by 50% for the financial year 1996-1997 with effect from 1-7-1996. Public objections were invited. However, no tax increase took place for the financial year 1996-1997. For the year 1997-1998, the impugned increase in taxation was effected, which has been impugned in the present proceedings. The trial Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the mandatory provision of Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980 have not been complied with reference to imposition of the impugned tax for the year 1996-1997 and the suit was decreed.
8. The First Appellate Court held that the procedure required by law had been carried out though for an earlier year and fresh publication was not necessary and failure in this behalf was not fatal as "if on account of inefficiency of Government servant, prescribed procedure is not adopted by an Officer of the Department, such an omission may call for an action against the officer but does not mean that whole affair become illegal.
9. An analysis of Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980 reveals that at the time of framing of the Annual Budget a tax proposal, if required, will be drawn out. It is also provided that there shall be separate proposals for every tax. Budget has been defined in section 3(1)(ii) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 to mean "the official statement of the income and expenditure of a local council for a financial year". Thus, there can be no escape from the fact that the taxation proposal must be for each financial year and thereafter such taxation proposal must be published and objections invited in terms of Rules 4 and 5 of the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980. It is evident from the record that the taxation proposal was neither prepared for the year 1997 nor published or objection solicited and received.
10. It is a settled principle that where a law requires specified formalities to be fulfilled before imposing any tax such provisions are deemed to be mandatory and non-compliance thereof would render the entire proceedings including the levy of the tax to be void. The provisions of Rules 3, 4 and 5 have been held to be mandatory and failure to comply with would render the tax imposed as invalid and void. This has been held in various judgments of this Court including Rauf Trading Company Limited v. Faisalabad Municipal Corporation through Mayor and others 1990 CLC 1732; I.C.I. Pakistan Limited v. Zila Council Jhelum through its Chairman and others 1992 CLC 458 and Galxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited v. Union Council, Dulu Khurd through Chairman and 4 others 1991 CLC 354.
11. In view of the above, it is clear and obvious that imposition of the Octroi tax in question has been imposed without due compliance of the mandatory provisions of law, hence are invalid. Thus, this revision petition is accepted. The impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court dated 10- 2-1999 is set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 27-6-1998 is restored.