The petitioner .Have called in-question the levy of licence fee on cows and buffalos at the rate of Rs. 150/- per annum per head by the then respondent No. 1 in terms of the Sindh Government Gazette dated June 2, 2002. Lt may not be necessary to go into detailed facts as the petitioner's contention appears to be that with levy is ultra vires the powers of the respondent No. 1 under the law.
2. Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz Sulehry learnedn counsel for the petitioner argued that under Section 60 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1997 a council could only levy taxes, tolls or fees specified in the Vth Schedule to the Ordinance. He further pointed out that Part-1 of the Vth Schedule only specified five items in respect whereof taxes or fee could be levied by the respondent No. 1 which was a Metropolitan Corporation. Prima facie the contention appears correct.
3. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed learned counsel for the respondent however pointed out that a tax on animals could be levied by a Corporation (excluding a Metropolitan Corporation) Municipal Committee or Town in terms of item No. 9 of, Part-II of the Vth Schedule. Learned counsel conceded that strictly speaking a tax on animal could be levied by a Zonal Municipal Committee in Karachi be pointed out that the respondent No, 1 could also levy the tax in question either with the consent of the concerned Zonal Municipal Committee or with the approval of the Government. Learned counsel relied' upon the second proviso to Section 60(1) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, where reads as follows:- "60(1): Subject to sub-section (2) a council may levy, in the prescribed manner, all or any of the / taxes, rates, tolls and fees mentioned in Schedule V: ......................... ..........................
Provided also that the Metropolitan Corporation may, with the consent of a Zonal Municipal Committee and where the Zonal Municipal Committee does not give consent, with the approval of Government, levy and tax, rates, toll or fee leviable by the Zonal Municipal Committee subject to such conditions as Government may specify."
4. Conceding that the consent of concerned Zonal Municipal Committee was not obtained, leamed counsel argued that the levy has been imposed after approval by the Provincial Government.
Indeed the Notification in-question records such approval having been granted through letter No. SO 6-98/99, dated 23.10.1999. The existence of such letter has not been questioned by the petitioner.
5. Mr. Sarfraz Sulehry attempted to argue that Schedule V only permitted levy of tax on animals and no licence fee could be charged. We are unable to agree. Though a fee as distinguishable from a tax can only be charged for services rendered and no general purposes tax can be collected when the law only empowers levy of fee.
The converse however is not true when the legislature confers the wide power to impose tax, the mere fact that it is described as fee is of no consequence.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that this petition is benefit of merits and would dismiss the same alongwith listed application.