Muhammad Afzal petitioner through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has challenged the notification dated NIL regarding the enhancement of TIP Tax by Respondent No. 1.
2. Precise facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a plot measuring 5z M comprising in Khasra No.1106, situated at Hadbas Mauza Gohawa, Tehsil Cantt. Lahore and he was required to pay TIP tax according to the notification of Respondent No.3 dated 29.06.2009. When the petitioner approached the Respondent No. 1 for the payment of said TIP Tax, he refused to receive the same and demanded TIP Tax according to public notice which was allegedly not issued by the competent authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Respondent No.1 has no authority to revise TIP tax; that only jurisdiction to impose TIP Tax is vested with the Provincial or Federal Government and the respondents have no authority to revise/impose any tax without any legislation; that the impugned public 'notice is without date and has become operative without observing the legal formalities; that no proper notification regarding enhancement of TIP Tax has been issued; that the Walton Cantonment Board is receiving TIP Tax according to the notification dated 29.06.2009 issued by Respondent No. 3, whereas, Lahore Cantonment Board is demanding TIP Tax according to revised public notice; that impugned public notice is illegal and without lawful authority and liable to be set-aside.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter has already been resolved in W.P. No. 19510/04 cannot be raised again and again by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court; that an alternative remedy of appeal U/S. 84 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 was available to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed the instant constitutional petition without exhausting the same; that U/S. 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 Respondent No. 1 has the powers to levy any tax in the Cantonment area with previous approval of the Federal Government; that actually Respondent No. 1 has not revised TIP tax rather revised current market value of the land/property.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The validity of public notice according to which TIP tax rates were increased has been challenged on the grounds that Respondent No.1 has no authority to revise the TIP Tax and that the same was issued without observing all the codal formalities. To resolve the controversy, it will be proper to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act, i.e. Sections 60, 61 and 62 which are as under:-- "60(1) The Board may with the previous sanction of the Federal Government impose in any cantonment a tax which, under any enactment for the time being in force, may be imposed in any municipality in the Province wherein such cantonment is situated;
(2) Any tax imposed under this section shall take effect from the date of its notification in the official gazette.
"61. When a resolution has been passed by the Board proposing to impose a tax under Section 60, the Board shall in the manner prescribed in section 255 publish a notice specifying (a) the tax which it is proposed to impose (b) the persons or classes of persons to be made liable and the description of the property or other taxable thing or circumstances in respect of which they are to be made liable; and (c) the rate at which the tax is to be levied.
62. (1) Any inhabitant of the cantonment may, within thirty days from the publication of the notice under Section 61, submit to the Board an objection in writing to all or any of the proposals contained therein and the Board shall take any objection into consideration and pass orders thereon by special resolution.
(2)If the Board decides to modify its proposals or any of them, it shall re-publish the modified proposals in the manner provided by Section 61 indicating that the proposals are in modification of the proposals previously published; and the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section shall apply to such modified proposals.
(3)When the Board has finally settled the proposals, it shall submit them alongwith the objections, if any, made in connection therewith to the Federal Government through the competent authority.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned public notice was issued without complying with the mandatory requirements of Sections 61 and 62 of the Act.
8. A careful examination of the case put forth in the petition reveals that the petitioner is not denying his liability to pay the TIP tax or the authority of the Board to recover the same. On the contrary, as per Para No. 5 of the writ petition, it has been averred by the petitioner that he approached the respondent/Board for the payment of TIP tax on the basis of valuation fixed by Respondent No.3 i.e. District Officer (Revenue) but a demand was raised as per the valuation notified by the Board (Annexure C to the writ petition).
9. It is manifestly clear that no new tax has been levied by the Board, therefore, the question of non- compliance of Sections 61 and 62 of the Cantonment Act 1924 has no relevance. According to the Gazette Notification dated 03.05.1994 bearing No. S.R.O. 382(I)/94 issued by the Government of Pakistan in exercise of its powers under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 whereby the respondent/Cantonment Board has been authorized to recover TIP Tax at the rate of 3% of the value recorded in the sale or as assessed by the Cantonment Executive Officer which-ever is higher. The valuation table given in the public notice is thus the assessment made by the Cantonment Executive Officer vis-a-viz the market value of such properties. No objection, therefore, could be raised qua the valuation fixed by the Respondent No. 1, as it has neither been shown as illegal nor arbitrary.
10.Resultantly this writ petition has no force and stands dismissed.