' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment, dated 18-6-2008, whereby the learned Lahore High Court at Lahore allowed respondent No, l's constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,5775 of 2007).
2. Respondent No,1 purchased a parcel of land, measuring 64 Kanals, 8 Marlas in Village Asal Lukhowal, Lahore, vide registered sale-deed dated 20-9-2005, executed by Mst. Munawar Bibi etc., however, when it was presented for registration, Sub-Registrar concerned directed him to pay a sum of Rs,1,93,200 as tax under the Punjab Local Government (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 2001. He paid the said amount, whereupon the sale-deed was registered.
Subsequently, respondent No,1 served a legal notice, upon the petitioners, demanding the refund of the said amount on the ground that since the proposed tax was not notified in the official gazette, therefore, it could not be collected, but his request was declined. Respondent filed the revision petition and during its pendency petitioner No,1 got published Notification No,759 dated 5-8-2003 in the official gazette dated 25-4-2006 notifying the imposition of said tax and consequent thereto respondent's revision petition was dismissed. He then filed the constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,5775 of 2007), which was allowed by the learned Lahore High Court at Lahore, vide impugned judgment, dated 18-6-2008, in the following manner:--- "In these circumstances, the impugned order is patently illegal and violative of the directions issued by the Government of the Punjab and also the law as interpreted by the apex Court and therefore, cannot sustain. Resultantly, this petition is allowed as prayed for and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs,1,93,200 to the petitioner forthwith. No order as to costs."
' Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Rule 9(2) of the Punjab Local Governments (Taxation) Rules, 2001 submitted that said Rule empowers a Local Council to specify the date of enforcement of Taxation proposal in the notification and as in the said notification the date of enforcement of Notification No,759 was given as 5-8-2003, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record.
Admitted facts are that the sale-deed favouring respondent No,1 was registered on 20-9-2005 after payment of Rs,1,93,200, that Notification No,759 was issued on 5-8-2003, that the petitioners recovered the aforenoted 'tax under the garb of said Notification on 20-9-2005 before its publication in the official gazette and that notification dated 5-8-2003 was got published in the official gazette on 25-4-2006. It flows therefrom that on the date of execution and registration of sale-deed dated 20-9-2005 Notification dated 5-8-2003 was not published in the official gazette.
Learned counsel, when asked as to why Notification No,759 dated 5-8-2003 could not be published for such a long period, stated that the petitioners sent the notification for publication to the Printing Press, but it was due to the negligence of the said Department that notification could not be published in the official gazette till 25-4-2006.
5. Now the question arises, as to whether the notification dated 5-8-2003 will take effect from the date of its issuance by the Local Council or from the date, when it was published in the official gazette. The learned High Court upon perusing instructions issued by the Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of Punjab, noticed that T.M.A. Could not collect taxes and fee without publication of notification in the official gazette. The, learned High Court, while relying upon the case of "Tehsil Municipal Administration Faisalabad v. Secretary Local Government, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and other. PLJ 2006 SC 783 rightly held that Tax Laws cannot be applied retrospectively and the same takes effect from the date of publication in the official gazette. We do subscribe to the findings of the learned High Court, which are in consonance with the law on subject. It may be noted that this Court in the case of Tehsil Municipal Administration Faisalabad (ibid) after concluding that revision of taxes and fees would take effect from the date of publication of notifications in the official gazette directed the Municipal Authorities to refund the revised amount of fee if collected during the interregnum period of date of notification and its publication in the official gazette.
6. As regards the reliance of learned counsel upon Rule 9(2) of the Punjab Local Government (Taxation) Rules, 2001, suffice it to say that although powers have been given to the Local Councils to give a date for enforcement of the tax proposals, yet those could not be exercised so as to give retrospective effect to tax proposal/Laws. In the present case the said rule is not applicable, as the Local Council tried to give retrospective effect to the said notification, which is violative of the established law on the subject. In view whereof, reliance of the learned counsel on the said rule is misconceived.
7. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that it does not suffer from any legal infirmity and we see no reasons to reverse the findings of the learned High Court, which are not only in consonance with the law on subject but also in accordance with record of the case. Learned counsel has not pleaded any misreading or non-reading of the evidence on record. No case for leave to appeal is made out.
8. For what has been discussed above, the present petition lacking in merits stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.