' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.--This order will dispose of two connected appeals (I.-C. A. No, 261/84 and 1.- C. A. No, 283/84) as common questions of law and fact are involved in both the appeals.
2. Appellants in I.-C. A. No, 261/1984 are residents of Shahkot, Tehsil and district Sheikhupura whereas appellants in I.-C. A. No, 283/84 are residents of Bhai Pheru, Tehsil Chunian, district Kasur.
Government of Punjab in exercise of its powers under section 3(1) of the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 ; hereinafter called Act V of 1958 issued a Notification W. P. No, 3514/1982 and the appellants in 1.-C. A. No, 283/1984 filed W. P. No, 1251/1983 to challenge the aforementioned notification, dated 15th July, 1980 and the consequential demand notices. They assailed the notification mainly on the around that in view of the provisions of section 137 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter described as Ordinance VI of 1979, empowering the local councils to levy the property tax on the annual rental value of buildings and lands, it was no more available to the Government to levy and impose the property tax in exercise of its powers under section 3 of Act V of 1958. This contention was repelled by the learned Single Judge with the result that the writ petitions filed by the appellants together with some other similar petitions were dismissed through a detailed consolidated judgment dated 9-10-1984 which judgment has been brought under challenge in the present appeals. Learned Single Judge held that the power vested in the local councils to levy the taxes was not absolute, but was subject to the provisions of any other law relating to the taxation.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of these appeals has reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. He challenged the competence of the Government to levy and impose the property lax on the ground that under section 137 of the Ordinance VI of 1979 read with Second Schedule, Part III, Item No, 2, power to levy the tax on the annual rental value of buildings and lands has been conferred on the local councils. Precise argument of the learned counsel was that Ordinance VI of 1979 being a later enactment, its provisions relating to the property tax impliedly repealed the corresponding provisions of section 3 of Act V of 1958. He sought further support for this argument from the provisions of section 4 of Ordinance VI of 1979. Learned counsel also traced the history of legislation of local bodies vis-a-vis their powers to levy the taxes and in that context, he referred to section 11 of the Punjab Finance Ordinance, 1971 and its amendment by section 7 of Punjab Finance Act, 1972, whereby local bodies were prohibited from levying, charging or collecting property tax in urban areas in respect of which a Notification under section 3(1) of Act V of 1958 had been issued. Submission of the learned counsel in this behalf was that after the promulgation of Ordinance VI of 1979, provisions similar to section 11 of the Punjab Finance Ordinance, 1971 have not been made. This omission, according to the learned counsel, was quite significant. It demonstrated the legislative intent that henceforth the property tax shall be levied and charged by the Municipal and Town Committees.
5. Before dealing with the contentions of the learned counsel, it may be of advantage to refer to the relevant provisions of different statutes having material bearing on the issues involved in this case.
Relevant provisions of section 3 of Act V of 1958 are as follows : - "3. Levy of tax.-(1) Government may by notification specify urban areas where tax shall be levied under this Act : ' Provided that one urban area may be divided into two or more rating areas or several urban areas may be grouped as one rating area.
(2) There shall be charged, levied and paid a tax on the annual value of buildings and lands in a rating area at the rate of ten per cent of such annual value - ' Section 3-A was inserted in Act V of 1958 for the first time in the year 1971 by Punjab Finance Ordinance XI of.
1971. It was substituted by Punjab Finance Act I of 1972 and then by Punjab Finance Act XL of 1975. In its final form, section 3-A is as follows :- "3-A.-Out of the tax collected under the Act from within the limits of a Municipal Committee, a Town Committee or a Cantonment Board, the Government shall after retaining 5% thereof as collection charges pay 85% of the balance to such Municipal Committee, Town Committee or Cantonment Board as the case may be."
' Section 4 and section 137 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 are reproduced hereunder :- "4. Act to override other laws.-The provisions of this Ordinance shall take effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.
137. Taxes to be levied.-A local council subject to the provisions of any other law may, and if directed by Government, shall levy all or any of the taxes enumerated in the second schedule."
' Section 11 of the Punjab Finance Ordinance, 1971 is in the following terms :- "11. No levying of tax on buildings and lands by Municipal Committees and Town Committees.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, or the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, or the rules made thereunder,- no tax on any building or land situated within the limits of a Municipal Committee or a Town Committee shall be charged, levied or collected by such Municipal Committee or Town Committee, as the case may be, with effect from 1st of July, 1971 : ' Provided that the tax assessed by a Municipal Committee or a Town Committee before the 1st of July, 1971 shall be paid to, received or recovered by such Municipal Committee or Town Committee in accordance with the provisions of the said Ordinance, Order or the rules, as the case may be."
' Section 11 afore referred was substituted by Punjab Finance Act I of 1972. In its amended form, section 11 is as follows :- "11. No levying of tax on buildings and lands by local bodies.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, or the Punjab People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972, or any rule made thereunder, as from 1st of July, 1971, no local body shall levy, charge or collect tax on any building or land situated in any urban area in respect of which a notification has been made under ' subsection (I) of section 3 of the West Pakistan Urban Iminovable Property Tax Act, 1958 : ' Provided that the tax assessed by a local body before the 1st of July, 1971 shall be paid to, received or recovered by such local body in accordance with the provisions of the said Ordinance, Order or rules, as the case may be."
6. Examination of the afore quoted provisions shows that under section 3 of Act V of 1958, Government was empowered to specify the urban areas where the tax on the annual value of buildings and lands, commonly known as the property tax, was to be levied and charged.. Power to levy the tax on the annual rental value of buildings and lands which A is the same thing as property tax, has also been conferred on the local councils under section 137 of Ordinance VI of 1979 read with item 2, Part III of the Second Schedule thereto. There is, however, no inconsistency or conflict between the two enactments in so far as the power conferred on local councils under section 137 is expressed to be "subject to the provisions of any other law." Phrase "any other law" used in section 13 evidently refers to laws relating to taxation which in the present context means Act V of 1958.
Thus, the power of the local councils to levy the property tax under section 137 of Ordinance VI of 1979 is subject to the power of the Government to levy and charge the property tax under section 3 of Act V of 1958. Necessary consequence of this is that notwithstanding the fact that local councils have been given the power to levy the property tax, they will be divested of that power if the property tax is being levied and charged by the Government under section 3 of 1958 Act through its functionaries in Excise and Taxation Department. However, if the tax is not levied under 1958 Act, local bodies are free to levy the tax under section 137.
7. As regards the argument of the learned counsel that levying and charging provisions of Act V of 1958 stood impliedly repealed by section 137 of Ordinance VI of 1979, it may be observed that 1958 Act is a special law dealing exclusively and specifically with the taxation of urban properties, whereas Ordinance VI of 1979 is a general law... It is settled principle that general law gives way to special law. Even otherwise, presumption is always against the implied repeal and strong reasons must-exist for inferring the repeal by implication. Reference may be made to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, 1969, page 191 "A later statute may repeal an earlier one either expressly or by implication. But repeal by implication is not favoured by the Courts And when the later Act is worded in purely affirmative language, without any negative expressed or implied, it becomes even less likely that it was intended to repeal the earlier law." It is further stated at page 193 of the same book "If, however, the provisions of a later enactment are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of an earlier one that the two cannot stand together, the earlier is abrogated by the later." In the present case, as noticed above, no inconsistency or repugnancy is involved in the two enactments. Language used in section 137, particularly the phrase "subject to the provisions of any other law", does not justify the argument of repeal by implication. On the contrary, as held above, power given to C the local councils to levy the property tax is subordinate to the, power exercisable by the Government under section 3 of 1958 Act. Both the provisions can, therefore, co-exist and question of repeal by implication does not arise.
8. Next argument of the learned counsel based on the provisions of section 4 of Ordinance VI of 1979 is equally devoid of force. Section 4 provides that the provisions of the Ordinance shall take effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. A plain reading of this provision shows that Ordinance VI of 1979 shall override the provisions of any other law, which are inconsistent with the Ordinance.' This provision is, however, not attracted in the present case, for the 'D simple reason that there is no inconsistency or contradiction between the provisions of section 137 of the Ordinance and section 3 of Act V of 1958. Section 137 as noticed above, has no doubt given the power of taxation to ,E the local councils, but this power is not absolute, but is subject to! Provisions of Act V of 1958.
9.
9.Yet another argument of the learned counsel was that the provisions similar to section 137 of Ordinance VI of 1979 existed even in the previous laws, such 'as Basic Democracies Order, 1959, Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, Punjab Peoples' Local Government Ordinance, 1972 and Punjab Local Government Act, 1975. Power of the Local Bodies to levy the property tax even under the afore referred laws was expressed to be subject to any other law and yet the legislature enacted section 11 of Punjab Finance Ordinance, 1971, to prohibit Local Government institutions from levying any tax on the buildings and lands situated within the limits of municipal committees or town committees. Inference sought to be drawn from this was that notwithstanding the use of the expression "subject to any other law" in the similar provisions in the previous statutes, Local Bodies were deemed to be empowered to levy the property tax even in the presence of Act V of 1958 and it was for this reason that section 11 of Punjab Finance Ordinance, 1971, was brought on the Statute Book. History of the legislation aforementioned shows that Punjab Finance Ordinance XI of 1971 not only enacted section 11 to prohibit the local bodies from levying the tax on buildings and lands, but also simultaneously inserted section 3-A in Act V of 1958 which provided that out of the taxes collected under this Act, Government shall. Retain 5% thereof as collection charges and pay 40% of the balance to the concerned Municipal Committees or Tow Committees. By later amendment, share of the Municipal Committees etc., was enhanced to 85% of the balance. No doubt, section 11 of the Punja Finance Ordinance 1971 was not amended so as to include Ordinance VI o 1979 therein, but this omission, in our view, is of no consequence. Intentions of the law.Maker that the property tax shall be levied and collected under, Act V of 1958 is quite manifest from the continued presence of section 3-A on the Statute Book, which was also amended by Punjab Finance Act, 1975, so as to raise the share of the Municipal Committees from 40% to 85 % in the property tax collected by the Government. While enacting section 137, legislature was quite conscious of the laws which held the field and were operative. If it had intented to confer on the local councils absolute and exclusive powers to levy the taxes, section 137 would have been differently worded.
' Upshot of the above discussion is that the Government was fully competent to issue the Notification impugned in the writ petition and to levy, charge and collect the property tax in the town committees of Shahkot and Bhai Pheru. We find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.