SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.--- Through the instant petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for passing a direction to respondent No,2 for A registration of her sale deed without imposing Capital Value Tax at the rate of 2% and Rs,10 per square feet of the area constructed, in pursuance to notification dated 28-6-2010, which came into effect from 1-7-2010.
2. Brief facts of the case in hand are that the present petitioner purchased a plot measuring 14 marlas and for registration of the sale-deed reduced the sale document into writing. Thereafter, on application made by the petitioner to the Sub-Registrar, a Local Commission was appointed. The Local Commission got the signatures and thumb- impressions of both the parties on the sale- deed and submitted the same before the Sub-Registrar for registration on 29-6-2010. After some times, when the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar to know the status of the sale-deed, she came to know that the same is not being registered due to the reason that CVT @ 2% was not paid by the petitioner, which was leviable with effect from 1-7-2006. Hence the instant petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the sale deed was presented by the petitioner for registration prior to 1- 7-2006, she was not required to pay CVT 2%. The learned counsel further contended that the amendment in the Finance Act, 1989, whereby levy of CVT @ 2% was introduced, has no retrospective effect and the same was effective with effect from 1-7-2006.
The learned counsel next contended that as the transaction was complete in all respects, the Sub- Registrar was bound to register the same and delay in registration of a valid document was caused by the Registration Authority and the public should not suffer due to the lapses on the part of government officials. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Muhammad Hameed v. District Officer (Revenue), Lahore and another (PLD 2007 Lahore 490).
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab assisted by the learned Assistant Advocate- General, Punjab has argued that registration of the sale-deed was deferred due to some material objection under rule 137 of the Registration Rules and the said document was resubmitted on 1-7- 2010, when the Government of Punjab had levied CVT @ 2% and the said document could not be registered without payment of CVT. The learned Additional A.G. Has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No,19553 of 2010, on 11-10-2010.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In the case of Muhammad Hameed v District Officer (Revenue), Lahore and another PLD 2007 Lahore 490, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, identical matter has been dealt with and decided by this Court in favour of the petitioner. As like the case in hand, in the cited case as well, the sale-deed was presented by the petitioner for registration prior to 1-7-2006 but the same was deferred on the ground that it was not supported by any documentary proof of ownership of seller, as required under Rule 137 of the Punjab Registration Rules, 1929. In the cited case Muhammad Hameed v. District Officer (Revenue), Lahore, (supra) qua the application of Rule 137 of Rules ibid, it has been held that the Registration Act, 1908, did not empower Sub-Registrar to probe into ownership of property, which was subject matter of sale transaction, It has been observed that even if probing or verification of ownership was to be made, it should have been made before asking the seller to put his signatures to authenticate transaction directly or through a Local Commissioner. The following has also been observed in the above cited case: "That it could not be brought to the levy merely for the reasons that its registration, for any reason whatsoever took place or was to be made after 1-7-2006. The petitioner having presented the document well before the date of levy viz. 1-7-2006 he cannot be held responsible for its non- registration. Therefore, for the same token the impugned levy cannot fall upon him."
7. The unreported case relied upon by the learned Addl. A.G. i,e, Writ Petition 19553 of 2010 is distinguishable from the instant case. In the referred case, the Sub-Registrar had refused to register the document, on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the sufficient stamp duty and this objection was raised by the office when the document was resubmitted on 30-6-2007. In the case in hand as well as the case relied upon by the petitioner, the document was complete in all respects and only delay in registration of the same was the cause of applicability of CVT, which could not be attributed to the petitioner.
8. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the petitioner was not required to pay CVT on the registration of her sale-deed, as she had presented it for registration prior to the imposition of the above said tax. Resultantly, ' the instant petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to register the sale deed of the petitioner without levy of CVT immediately.