MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant civil revision assailed the judgments/decrees dated 1.4.2006 and 29.6.2005, bassed by the learned Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge, Mianwali, whereby respondent's suit. Was decreed and the appeal for the petitioner was dismissed, respectively.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that respondent who is a limited company, involved in manufacturing of drugs etc. In the name of Anti Biotics (NI) Limited, filed a suit for declaration with perpetual injunction as consequential relief -to the effect that demand of licence fee of Rs.
50,000/- per annum for the year 1992-93 on the basis of Notification No. 2245-ZCM, dated 7.6.1992 by the petitioner was illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further pleaded that demand of the petitioner was made without observing formalities of the law/rules applicable and- being without providing the respondent an opportunity of hearing, was liable to be declared as prayed. A decree for permanent injunction was prayed also as a consequential relief, restraining the petitioner from demanding or effecting recovery of- the. Impugned licence fee.
3. The petitioner being defendant in the suit, contested the same by filing its written statement wherein it was emphasized that District Council was competent to levy the licence fee under the provisions of the Punjab .Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and that a 'notice in this behalf was duly published in the newspaper. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated of framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Civil Judge who was seized of the suit, after doing the needful decreed the suit of the respondent vide judgment/decree dated 1.4.2062.
4. The petitioner aggrieved of the decision of the Trial Court dated 1.4.2002 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed through an appellate judgment/decree dated 29.6.2005. The petitioner has row filed instant revision petition for ad judgment of concurrer judgments/decrees of the two Courts below on the groun I that those are not in accordance with law applicable and he facts proved on the file.
6. For the reasons noted above, both the Courts below correctly concluded the list and returned their findings in support of the issues framed, strictly in accordance With law. None of the Courts below committed any illegality/irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction of. This Court; hence, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine.
Civil . {{BLUR PAGE}} Respondent being a dy corporate vvas a corporation as such it could be yected to excluSive taxes, duties and fees by the eration by virtue of said entry in "Federal Legislative --Petitioner/Zilla Council had no lawful authority to levy tax on the basis of purported notification on a e action/respondent ass ame was not constitutionally ibl--Civil revision petition dismissed. ris:- to it17,00 tax on rporation by Zilla Council. C.P.C.---tevy of tax on corporation b Zilla Zilla council had no lawful authority to levYy any )ndent/orporationj (Pares 5,6,7) Doer: nth. Na vfraz 8 a j Lila Advocate {{BLUR PAGE}} {{BLUR PAGE}} AL ok. tIONOND 07.00P,k_ .1.---v\skall 6\1\\ #TBS -c\a\ Coe. Ote6 A 2-(30(100 a9Pea\ tej A. "Oe pet:600ec aggoeved the 1:\de\ooa\ D\sk6ck Judge `out 'cect\a0ed k.0{{BLUR PAGE}} #TBE #TBS 9\ea609s (2A the C2stkes 'NeGess\taked kOcc`0( and recovd\c'g e\l\deoce. Toe easned C\v\\ seaed k\-\e so\k, akke do\og the vyeedq, deOel the 'cespoodeok vide ..,\dgcoeokidecee daked 1\ A #TBE #TBS . Coisec\oer-\a' 30101 the ye 0 Rs. P1- '6akeo \k 4,135 k-v(t\-Ne'c pe \Aooe N1135 3116 k\ pekkk\orNe lcaoe artc' beer No\:\C'GA:\11 No no, \N\k\lout. .\\Ac\s c'lade \t\\khoU #TBE #TBS 9(\:e\pas6ee;911e'itoe:\\t'e05e:k's\-\peol.Ra\Niec\iseos oacC:0\rkoci\to react 6\.,00:\on vlas pcayed a\so as de A. v4as Vab\e to be A PN. oe0ee Ce1a 0-00. '004\\1%ecwed pc.Ayk..1. Colsecoolo re #TBE #TBS pov\S\oc\ d Go #TBE #TBS "(he pe\:600e `oe0g deel-'6a "S\ \..,\\! 'cecovecy the Vpuglied cel-xce d \.\-\e saro Bourke 0140.'(\kke:Is\-00:e,:c:0\:\ \ has coropekeo #TBE #TBS eskca\I-C\11q kbe Vek:\et (:)\11 erc\ac\u".1 #TBE #TBS Oed a s\l. The eect t\12". 93 or\ the basxs pie Ac9'92-6 A92, , 'e\-11\ses a dec\aca's:\on. With 60.00,06, \,\cec\ce #TBE #TBS ie'o \r'iho 's Ilgictoo'000 o, 6 ,10,1,2\\., o\skr\c,k. ,Na\a'l Iar'uiactuk. SW.Aodas Pa, 9a? Ecpekka, ck-:\c'\13\1 aspe'ifitolet #TBE #TBS espoodeos a tespeck\we\ .
ST6,.C\k..\\'\1_0:\,te.Ced\e\lallk'(:(11:C9.:::::\s, \N\tb 01,, h. \r,19,\\ #TBE #TBS \eacNed NO oec.(acceed aA -s\.,1\k was . was 6\50A\ se , kbee,k11;sgpeoolAde,0 iackor\I #TBE #TBS '3e\la\ `Os (34`-'\`1 900's\-,e0 \-`e c\e`NsVa9 #TBE #TBS Goveo-Olenk 01 #TBE #TBS Tatseestroec\las\jed dec kbe doar\ce, 1919, so #TBE vs\S\or' ass\ed, the \udgOeoksIdecees doted 1 .4.2.002 and, 2.9.6.2,005, passed by the \eaSoed Give Judge and the 'd\\Ncsh a\ D\skock Judge, 6 .\,.\\Vloas3V,ce:\ \10e'ceboe {{BLUR PAGE}} same was dismissed through an appellate judgment/decree dated 29.6.2005. The petitioner has now filed instant revision petition for adjudgment of concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below on the ground that those are not in accordance with, law applicable and the facts proved on the file.
5. I have, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record appended herewith. Besides the reasons which weighed with the two Courts below while deciding the lis, including that the petitioner being not an urban local council, could not impose any tax/fee as per definition of urban local council given by. Section 3 of the Ordinance, 1999, respondent is a company limited by shares incorporated and established under the provisions of Companies Ordinance, 1984, who was liable to taxes/fees leviable by the Federation. Items Nos. 31, 52 and 54 of Part No. 1 of the 4th Schedule of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, while detailing the "Federal Legislative List", made the corporations liable to federal taxes, duties and fees.
Respondents being a body corporate is a corporation and as such it could be subjected to exclusive taxes, duties and fees by the Federal Legislative List". The petitioner had no' lawful authority to levy any fee on the basis of Notification No. 2245/ZCM, dated 7.6.1992 on a corporations like the respondent as the same is not constitutionally permissible.
6. For the reasons noted above, both the Courts below correctly concluded the list and returned their findings in support of the issues framed, strictly in accordance with law. None of the Courts below committed any illegality/irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court; hence, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine.