SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J. Higher Education Commission has challenged the Challans issued by the respondents requiring it to pay property tax. A further declaration has also been sought from this Court to the effect that the petitioner is exempt from payment of the property tax.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is an instrumentality of the Federal Government and that Federal Government has complete administrative control over it. It is furthermore submitted that it is the sovereign function of Federal Government to maintain the standard of the Higher Education Commission which is exclusively performed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, it is argued that the demand made through the Challans requiring it to pay property tax is illegal and that it is exempt from payment of property tax on the properties owned by it in the Province of Punjab.
3. Report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the stance of the petitioner has been controverted. Learned Assistant Attorney General submits that by virtue of section 4(a) of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958 (thy Act) the petitioner does not enjoy any exemption in respect of property tax.
4. Section 4 of the Act deals with the "exemptions". The said provision is reproduced hereunder as so far is relevant:
4. Exemptions: The tax shall not be leviable in respect of the following properties, namely:
(a) buildings and lands other than those leased in perpetuity, owned by the Federal Government; This provision was amended by the Punjab West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1975 (XXI of 1975) and the expression "Vesting' in" as contained in the original provision was substituted by "owned by". The respondents have rightly argued that the expression "vesting in" has a wider connotation and that by the amendment made in the year 1975 in section 4(a) its scope has to be narrowly interpreted.
5. Notwithstanding the legal position encapsulated above, the Supreme Court in its judgment reported as Higher Education Commission H/9, Islamabad through Project Director v. Allah Bakhsh and others 2023 SCMR 1077 has held that the Higher Education Commission cannot be equated with the Government. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
6. The Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 bring into being the Higher Education Commission, which is a statutory corporation. It has many qualities, for instance, defined powers that it cannot exceed, and it is directed by a group of persons, collectly known as the Commission, whose function it is to see that those powers are properly used. It may acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and may use or be used. The day-to-day control of the administration is vested in the Chairperson assisted by the other officers. It makes its own appointments, has its own rules for recruitment. It has an independent account. Its Chairperson, members and officers, servants, consultants and advisers are public servants. All these attributes made it clear that although the Higher Education Commission is owned and funded by the Government, and its chairperson and members are appointed by the Prime Minister, it is, in the eye of law, still a separate legal entity and has a separate legal existence. It is its own master and is answerable as fully as any other person or corporation of the State. It is not the Government, nor does it act on behalf of the Government, and as such, does not enjoy any immunity or privileges of the Government.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment are merely obiter as the facts of the case related to the application of Article 149 of the Limitation Act, 1908 in a suit filed by the Higher Education Commission. The submission so made is not tenable as even the biter of the Supreme Court is binding on the High Courts.
7. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for the grant of prayer made in the writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.