This order shall dispose of I.C.A. No.353 of 2006 filed by the appellant Cantonment Board, Lahore Cantt. To call in question the validity of order dated 14-11-2006 whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court by accepting the .Writ petition A directed the appellant to refund the impugned tax to the respondent.
2. Facts of the case are that on 10-2-2000 the appellant purchased a plot situated in DHA, Lahore falling within the limits of the appellant Cantonment Board. It is contended that as a pre-condition for the registration of sale-deed, the respondent was coerced to deposit the tax on transfer of immovable property in favour of the appellant Board, and in the constitutional petition it was urged that it was not chargeable and sought its refund. As stated earlier, the learned Judge in Chambers accepted the writ petition directing the appellant to refund the same to the respondent.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record. It has been held by the learned Judge that tax in question purported to have been levied under section 60 of the Cantonments Act 1924, whereunder, a tax which is levied in the municipal area can also be chargeable in the cantonment area. Tax on transfer of immovable property was initially leviable under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 under sections 137 and 138 thereof. However, it was deleted from the Schedule 2 of the Ordinance by Ordinance XXIX on 29-6-1999, hence, in B the relevant period i.e., the date of the sale-deed dated 10-2-2000 said tax was not leviable in the municipal area, hence, could not be charged in the cantonment area or recovered from the respondent. Similar view was expressed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of. Mst. Nargis Moeen v. Govt. Of Pakistan PLD 2003 Lahore 730 which was upheld by the apex Court in CP No.2300-L of 2003. Hence, no exception can be taken to the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed accordingly.