' SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, J.---Charging of motor vehicle tax is challenged through this petition.
2. The petitioner claims to be owners of some motor vehicles registered with the Motor Registration Authority, Balochistan. Motor vehicle tax is asserted to have been paid in Balochistan (receipts attached). Charging of the same tax again by respondent No. 1 (Regional Transport/Taxation Authority Sargodha) is challenged on the ground that double taxation is not permissible under the relevant law.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General was asked (on last date of hearing) to seek instructions. He is present along with Faisal Shahzad, ETO, Sargodha. Reply along with Annexures is filed. It is submitted that the tax charged is only a differential amount between the taxes paid in Balochistan and required to be paid, at the rate applicable, in the province of Punjab. Receipt of Motor vehicle tax paid (Annex. "N") along with the fitness certificate issued by the Motor Vehicle Examiner, Sargodha, are relied upon in support. Rule 6 Sub-Rule (iv) of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1969 is read to contend that the claimed exemption would not be available, if the motor vehicle is kept for more than thirty days in the Province of Punjab It is apprised that the motor vehicles in question are being plied on the route "General Bus Stand Sargodha to General Bus Stand Rawalpindi" by Al-Shahbaz Transport Company (Pvt.) Ltd. Route permit is attached along with a certificate from contractor of Sargodha Bus Stand; confirming that vehicles, in question, are being plied on Sargodha Rawalpindi route for last many years. Contends that Respondents were justified to charge the differential amount of tax, in view of Sub-rule (iv) of the Rule 6.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the arguments. He submits that the Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 6 cannot be interpreted, the way it is being portrait by the learned Additional Advocate General. He argues that word "brought" as used in the Sub-rule (iv) is to be given narrow connotation; means the vehicles are dumped in the Province of Punjab and are not going out of the province for more than 30 days. Further submits that Rule 6 relates to the exemption and is not a charging provision, therefore, cannot be interpreted against the petitioner.
5. Heard, record perused.
6. It is undisputed fact that motor vehicles in question are plied on a route within territorial limits of the Province of Punjab for last many years, as the route permit and certificate issued by contractor of Sargodha Bus Stand is not denied by petitioner's side.
In this backdrop, to resolve the controversy emanating from the arguments of both; examination of relevant Laws and Rules is felt expedient.
7. Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965 ('Ordinance of 1965") was adopted by the Provinces; it applies in each Province with prefix of the respective Province's name after necessary amendment:. Its Chapter III deals with 'Registration of Motor Vehicles'; section 23 in this chapter prohibits a motor vehicle from being driven at any place unless it is registered. Section 24 requires a vehicle to be registered by its owner at his place of residence or business, where it is normally kept. A motor vehicle registered in any part of Pakistan does not require further registration at another part under section 29, subject to provisions of section 30. However, assignment of new registration mark is required under section 30, if it is kept in another Province for a period exceeding twelve months. The assigned registration mark shall be entered upon the existing registration certificate, under intimation to previous Registration Authority. Section 31 deals with procedure, when residence or place of business is changed.
' The route permit issued by Motor Vehicles Authority Sargodha and certificate by contractor of Sargodha Bus Stands, confirms the fact that vehicles in question have changed the place of business and are kept in territorial limits of the Province of Punjab for more than twelve C months, therefore, the petitioner (being owner) is required to comply with the statutory obligation, inter alia, under the above discussed provisions.
8. Tax on motor vehicles is levied and controlled by The Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1958. This Act is also adopted by the Provinces, with prefix of Province's name after necessary amendments. In the Province of Punjab, it is known as The Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1958 ("the Taxation Act").
' Section 3 of the Taxation Act is charging section, its reproduction is necessary for further elaboration;
3. Imposition of tax:- (1) A tax shall be leviable on every motor vehicle, in equal instalments for quarterly periods commencing on the first day of July 1, the first day of October, the first day of January, and the first day of July at the rate specified in the Schedule to this Act: ' Provided that for reasons specified therein the Government may, by notification, in respect of any class of motor vehicles or motor vehicles plying in any specified area or along any specified route, prescribe a rate lower than the rate mentioned in the Schedule: ' Provided further that any broken period in such quarterly periods shall, for the purpose of levying the tax, be considered as a full period.
(2) The tax shall be paid upon a licence to be taken out and paid for under the provisions of this Act by the person who keeps the motor vehicles for use. [Emphasis supplied] ' Collective reading of this section shows that tax shall be levied on every vehicle and shall be paid upon a licence, by a person who keeps it for use. Grant of licence is dealt in section 7; it is granted to every person who pays to a licensing officer first instalment of tax due. Licence shall be dated when tax paid and shall expire on 30th day of June, next following.
' Section 13 of the Taxation Act deals with 'Exemptions and Deductions"; under its subsection (2), a licensing officer may give exemption order if it is proved before him that the vehicle was not used for a whole quarter. Its subsection (3) deals with exemption if it is proved before the licensing officer that tax due for a whole or part of quartet is paid to Municipality or Cantonment authority, in respect of same motor vehicle, then the amount of the tax paid for said period shall be deducted from the quarterly instalments of tax. Power to make rules is provided under section 15. In exercise of power under this section, The Punjab Motbr Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1959 ("the Taxation Rules") were framed. The clause (iv) of Rule 6 under the Taxation Rules is reproduced hereunder; "6. Exemptions from payment of tax:- (1) The persons who keep for use motor vehicles of the following classes shall be totally exempted from liability to pay the tax in respect of such vehicles:-
(iv) Motor vehicles (other than such transport vehicles registered outside the Province as normally operate on a route which lies partly outside the Province and partly inside it unless specially exempted by Government) temporarily brought into the Province and kept for use therein for a period not exceeding thirty days."
The Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 6, in simple words exempt those vehicles which are not brought into the Province (the Province of Punjab) permanently. Its collective reading discloses that this Sub-rule has categorized the vehicle into two groups; a) which normally operate on a route which lies partly outside the Province, and b) which are temporarily brought into the Province and kept therein for less than thirty days. The former category needs specific exemption by the Government, whereas the latter category is exempted under this rule if brought into the province for a period not exceeding thirty days. Tax is leviable, under section 3, on every motor vehicle which is kept (in the Province) for use. However, Sub-rule (iv) exempts such levy if a vehicle is kept in the Province for less than thirty days.
' It is settled law that 'exemption presupposes the levy'. In other words, question of exemption does not arise where tax is not leviable, as is held in Collector of Customs and others v. Ravi Spinning Ltd.
And others (1999 SCM R 412 = 1999 PTD 1078).
9. For better understanding of the concept of exemption under fiscal statute, an excerpt for the judgment of Apex Court in case Messrs Humauun Ltd. v. Pakistan and others (PLD 1991 SC 963) is reproduced:- "In a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Bisval Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent Central Excise and Land Custom PLD 1988 SC 370, it was observed as follows: "The charge has been imposed by the legislature but the power of granting exemption has been left to the Federal Government.
The second rule of interpretation attracted concerns the exemptions allowable in fiscal statutes.
Sutherland in his Statutory Construction (Vol.3, Edition 3 at page 296) elaborates the rule in the following words: "As a general rule grants of tax exemptions are given a rigid interpretation against the assertion of the tax payer and in favour of the taxing power. The basis for the rule here is the same as that supporting a rule of a strict construction of positive revenue laws that the burden of taxation should be distributed equally and fairly among the members of the society. However, exemptions claimed by the State or its sub-divisions are usually liberally construed and the same rule has frequently been applied to exemptions made in favour of charitable organizations."
' In Bank of Commerce v. Tennesse (161 US 134) this principle was further explained in the following words: "Taxes being the sole means by which sovereignties can maintain their existence, any claim on the part of anyone to be exempt from the full payment of his share of taxes on any portion of his property must on that account be clearly defined and founded on plain language. There must be no doubt or ambiguity in the language used upon which the claim to the exemption is founded. It has been said that a well-founded doubt is fatal to the claim; no implication will be indulged in for the purpose of construing the language used as giving the claim for the exemption, where such claim is not founded upon the plain and clearly expressed intention of the taxing power."
10. In my opinion; the vehicles in question does not fall in either of the categories under Sub-rule
(iv) of Rule 6, because it is being plied on a route (Sargodha-Rawalpindi) for last many years. Being registered in the Province of Balochistan, though it does not require further registration in the Province of Punjab under section 29 of the Ordinance of 1965, yet the provisions of section 29 are subject to section 30. Under provisions of section 30 of the Ordinance of 1965, these vehicles being kept in the Province of Punjab for a period exceeding twelve months, require 'assigned registration mark' with the Regional Motor Vehicle Authority, and due to change of the place of business, procedure under section 31 of Ordinance of 1965 is required to be followed.
11. Adverting to the ground that charging of tax in the Province of Punjab amounts to double taxation; it may be observed (on the basis of law examined supra) that The Taxation Act applies independently in each province, with prefix of the name of relevant province. Its Section '3 levies motor vehicle tax independently for each province, however, under exemption provisions its double taxation is taken care of; like in the Rule 6(iv) and Section 13(3). Nevertheless, double taxation can be made by the Legislature through express and clear enactment, as is held by Apex Court in case Hail Muhammad Shafi and others v. Wealth Tax Officer and others (1992 PTD 726), relevant part is reproduced for advantage; "It is thus, clear that unless there is any prohibition or restriction on the power of the legislature to impose a tax twice on the same subject-matter, double taxation cannot be declared illegal or void though it may be oppressive and inequitable. Unless there is a clear law imposing tax twice merely by implication tax cannot be imposed twice over. There should be a clear and specific provision to that effect."
12. Since the vehicles, in question, are kept in the Province of Punjab for use, therefore, motor vehicle tax is leviable in Punjab. In case procedure under sections 30 and 31 is not followed by respondents and petitioner is still paying motor vehicle tax at Balochistan then petitioner may be given benefit of Subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Taxation Act by allowing deduction of the tax paid (in Balochistan) from the tax due for whole or part of quarter chargeable in the Province of Punjab.
' For the reasons discussed, grounds taken by the petitioner are found misconceived and against the spirit of law, therefore, this petition is Dismissed.