1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal, by special leave of this Court, is from the judgment and order of the Letters Patent Bench of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, allowing the Letters Patent Appeal of the respondent, Karachi Municipal Corporation.
2. The appeal arose out of a suit filed icy the appellant-company for a declaration that the demand of the respondentupon the appellant to submit return in respect of the Show Tax was illegal are without jurisdiction, and for an injunction restraining the respondent from demanding, levying and imposing any Show Tax upon the appellant in respect of Liberty Cinema situated at Nazimabad, Karachi, for the period October 1955 to October 1958. The appellant is the owner of the aforesaid cinema. The respondent demanded Show Tax from the appellant at the rate of Rs.10 per show for exhibiting films in the said cinema and also required it to submit written returns in that regard. The demand was challenged by the appellant by a suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, which, inter alia, held that under section 96 of the City of Karachi Municipal Act. '93', the Corpora--petition was entitled to levy and impose taxes for the purposes of the Act, which meant that the imposition of taxis must be co-related to the fulfilement of duties enumerated in section 34 of the Act. The respondent not having performed these duties in Nazimabad area where the cinema is situated, it was not entitled to levy taxes.
3. On appeal by the Corporation, the learned District Judge reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appellant's suit. The main question that was argued before the learned District Judge was that Nazimabad, where the aforesaid cinema is situated, had been excluded from the limits of the Karachi Municipal Corporation. This contention was repelled. It was found that the Corporation was entitled to levy taxes in Nazimabad.
4. The appellant preferred a second appeal before the High Court, and it was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Court, and the appellant's suit was decreed subject to the condition that the declaration and injunction would be operative only for the period ending on the 13th of October, 1958, it having been conceded on behalf of the appellant that as from the 13th of October, 1958, the Karachi Municipal Corporation was entitled to levy the said tax.
5. Upon a certificate granted by the learned Single Judge under clause 10 of the Letters Petent, the respondent filed an appeal in the High Court, and it was allowed as mentioned already.
6. Leave has been granted to consider the legality of the demand of "Show Tax" under section 96 of the said Act for the period October 1955 to October 1958.
7. It has been contended before us that inasmuch as the respondent---Corporation rendered no services under the Act to the residents of Nazimabad during the aforesaid period, the Corporation is not entitled to impose the tax in question. In particular, it has been submitted that during this period the Central Government had resumed the area under section 57 of the Act, and the area had, thus, gone out of the limits of the City of Karachi.
8. The second contention was rightly repelled by the Letters Patent Bench, which held that the resumption by the Government under section 57 of the Act, did not amount to excluding the area.
9. Alterations of the limits of the City of Karachi including taking out any local area from the limits of the City as mentioned in Schedule X of the Act can only be done under section 271 of the Act, and the effects of such exclusion are prescribed in section 272 of the said Act. It has, therefore, been rightly held that Nazimabad has been a part of the City of Karachi and it has continued to be so without any interruption.
10. As regards the ability of the Corporation to impose the aforesaid Show Tax upon the appellant, and the validity of the imposition of the tax for the aforesaid period, the appellant's contention appears to suffer from a misconception. Section 34 of the Act imposes a large number of duties upon the Corporation which it fulfils for the benefit of the inhabitants of the entire City of Karachi, although some of them may not relate directly to any particular area, and although the Corporation personnel does not actually visit any particular area for rendering the services entrusted to him by the Corporation. The duties include the construction or laying out of drains for effectually draining the City; the collection, removal, treatment and disposal of sewage, offensive matter and rubbish; the reclamation of unhealthy localities; the regulation of places for the disposal of the dead and the provision of new places for the said purpose; registration of births and deaths; public vaccination; the prevention and checking of disease; the construction or acquisition of :Markets End the maintenance of all municipal markets; the regulation of all markets, lodging houses, camping grounds and rest houses in the City; the construction or acquisition of slaughter houses; s the regulation of offensive arid dangerous trades; the maintenance of a fire-by brigade and of suitable appliances for the extinction of fires and the protec--petition of life and property against fire; the prevention and checking of actual or threatened emergencies likely to involve damage to property or danger to human or animal life; measures for the securing or the removal of dangerous buildings and places; construction, levelling, maintenance, (includ--ing metalling or paving and channelling) and improvement of public streets and the construction and maintenance of public bridges, culverts, cause-ways and the like; the lighting of all public streets and municipal markets and of buildings vested in the Corporation; the removal of obstructions and projec--tions in and upon streets, bridges another public places; the naming of streets, and public places vested in the Corporation, and the numbering of streets, buildings and lands; the construction or acquisition, improvement and maintenance of offices and buildings required for municipal purposes, and the maintenance of all public monuments and other property vested in the Corporation; the construction or acquisition and maintenance of hospitals for the treatment of contagious or infectious diseases; the expenses c f treating pauper lunatics and pauper lepers sent to public asylums from the City; the maintenance of public parks, gardens, recreation grounds and open spaces, the establishment of vernacular primary schools; the management, visiting and maintenance of all vernacular schools so established or vested in the Corporation, the construction and repair of all buildings connected therewith and the pay and appointment of the teaching staff in such schools; the recognition, control, visiting and aid of vernacular schools under private management. Besides these, there are other duties, namely, provisions for anti-rabic treatment of indigent persons and the maintenance and treatment of certain of lunatics and lepers at any asylum, hospital or other house. The duties which I have just mentioned are obligatory upon the Corporation. There are, however, other duties mentioned under section 37 of the Act, which the Corporation in its discretion performs for the benefit of the inhabitants of the City.
11. It is, thus, evident from the duties of the Corporation mentioned above that every person residing in the City enjoys the benefits of the services, which Corporation performs for the City. Can the appellant say that he is not treading the municipal roads; is not benefiting by the various health services provided by the municipality; is not purchasing his daily articles of need from markets maintained by the municipality; is not enjoying the amenities of park, open space, etc. And a host of other things provided by the municipality. In this connection, it is of interest to note that there are only two sections of the Act, namely, sections 99 and 100, which provide that certain taxes can be levied only after something is undertaken or done by the Corporation. Sections 99 and 100 of the Act are as follows:- "99. (1) The conservancy-tax shall be levied only in respect of buildings and lands:-
(a) Situate in any portion of the City in which, after public notice given to that effect by the Chief Officer, the removal of sewage, offensive matter and rubbish is undertaken by municipal agency, or
(b) in which, whether situated in the City or not, there is a connection for the removal of sewage to a municipal drain.
(2) In any portion of the City in which underground-servers are provided by the Corporation, the conservancy tax may be levied at a higher percentage than in other portions of the City.
100. (1) The water-tax shall be levied only in respect of buildings and lands -
(a) which are connected by means of communication pipes with any municipal water-works; or
(b) which are situated in any portion of the City in which the Corporation, after public notice given to that effect by the Chief Officer, has arranged to supply water from municipal water-works in quantity sufficient to meet the reasonable demands of the occupiers of build--ings and lands in the said portion for their domestic purposes.
(2) The water tax shall be levied in respect of buildings and lands which are liable under clause (b) of subsection (1) at a lower rate than in respect of buildings and lands which are liable under clause (a)."
12. There is nothing on record to show that the Corporation was not rendering services as contemplated under sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Act or that the appellant and the residents of Nazimabad were not benefited or are not benefiting by some or other of those services. The appellant has not asserted that it did not benefit by any of the services rendered by the Corporation. If the Corporation neglects or fails to perform any of its statutory duties, legal action may be taken to enforce the performance of such duties. But such neglect or failure will not relieve the tax payer from paying taxes.
13. Section 96 of the Act provides for imposition of tax by the Corporation for the purposes of this Act.
14. The imposition of the "Show Tax" in question is perfectly justified and legal under the Act, for its proceeds are spent for the performance of the statutory duties imposed upon the Corporation.
15. Under section 76 of the Act all moneys received by or on behalf of the Corporation under the provisions of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force or under any contract, etc. Are directed to be held by the Corporation for the purposes of this Act, and the manner in which the money as mentioned in section 76 are to be spent are prescribed in sections 77 to 85 of the Act, the details of which it is not necessary to mention here.
16. The view I have taken is fully supported by our decision in Civil Appeal No. K-25 of 1947 (Messrs Hussain D'Silva Enterprises v. The Karachi Municipal Corporation) decided on the 20th of May, 1969.
17. In this case the validity of conservancy tax levied under section 99(1) of the City of Karachi Municipal Act, 1933, was challenged on the ground that no arrangements for the removal of sewage, offensive matter and rubbish from the premises of the appellant was undertaken by the municipal agency. It was held that inasmuch as such arrangements had been made for the area concerned the levy of conservancy tax on the appellant's premises was legal.
18. I, therefore, find no force in the appellant's contention, and fully agree with the decision of the Letters Patent Bench. I dismiss the appeal but without any order as to costs.
19. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-I agree with the order proposed to be made in this case by my learned brother Salahuddin Ahmed, J.
20. As a general rule, the validity of the imposition of a municipal tax can be challenged either on the ground that the requisite power has not been conferred on the municipality concerned by the statute or the charter which governs its functions and powers; or that the imposition is not for the purposes of the municipality. The challenge cannot, however, be based on the ground that the municipality has failed to carry out its duties and obligations in a certain locality or for the benefit of certain individuals, as, municipal taxation is intended for carrying on the administration of the municipality as a whole. The failure, neglect, or inability of the municipality to perform its functions in a certain locality, comprised within the municipal area, does not relieve the citizen of his liability to pay municipal taxes, whose imposition has been authorised by law, as the liability to pay arises on account of the presence of the citizen, or the property taxed, in the area of the municipality concerned, and not as a quid pro quo for concrete services rendered. The well-established concept underlying the functioning of local government institutions is that such general taxes are for the collective good of the municipal community as a whole, and are not to be regarded as being in the nature of payment for particular utilities or services provided by the municipal administration. There are, however, exceptions to this rule such as are to be found in sections 99 and 100 of the City of Karachi Municipal Act, 1933 (hereafter referred to as the Act). Which contemplate that conservancy and water taxes are to be levied only if certain services and supplies are provided to the buildings and localities concerned. It appears, therefore, that the Legislature has itself taken care to specify those charges and taxes, the payment of which would depend on the performance of certain duties and services. This condition cannot be extended to other taxes not so specified.
21. At one stage in the litigation between the parties, it was contended that the locality of Nazimabad where the appellant's cinema is situate, did not form part of the municipal area of Karachi, but this point was not agitated before us, as a finding of fact was recorded in this behalf by the learned District Judge in first appeal, a finding which has not been disturbed by the High Court. The cinema being thus situate within the municipal area, the Karachi Municipal Corporation was authorised in law to impose the impugn--ed tax under the power conferred on it by subsection (2)(d) of section 96 of the Act, as held by this Court in Mohammad Nurullah v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Karachi (Civil No. 1 of 1959 decided on 1-12-1959). The Division Bench in the High Court has rightly observed that there was nothing to show that the proceeds of the tax were not to be utilised for the purposes of the Act, as understood in the collective sense.
22. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are, therefore, mis--conceived and the appeal has-to be dismissed as proposed by my learned brother.