' IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.---The four petitioners purchased a building known as "Japan Mansion" bearing No,AMB 4/3(310/1) situated in Saddar, Karachi, through a registered sale-deed dated 14-10-1984.
The petitioners, by their letter dated 18-7-1985, informed the Excise & Taxation Officer F & G Division, Karachi, about the purchase of the said building and requested that the ownership of the said building be recorded in their names in their registers. The change of ownership was ultimately allowed by his order passed on 20-8-1985.
2. The aforementioned building as the result of general survey conducted in the year 1968 was assessed as having Rs,48,347 as its General Annual Rental Value. Later on in the year 1973 due to conversion of a godown into shops additional annual rental value of Rs,11,304 was added to the previous valuation. Annual rental value of the said building with such addition came to Rs,59,627.
' Due to change in the ownership of the building the Excise & Taxation Officer F & G Division, the respondent No,3 herein by his letter dated 20-11-1985 required the petitioners to furnish him the details of actual rent received by them as he in exercise of his powers under section 9 of the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, intended to revise the assessment. The respondent No,3, by his notice dated 2-3-1986 informed the petitioners that he had sufficient information to revise assessm ent of the property in question at GARV of Rs,1,57,512 with effect from 1-1-1985 and required them to file the objections to his proposals within 14 days. The petitioners then filed their objections regarding his jurisdiction to revise the valuation list and other grounds but they did not succeed.
The respondent No,3 revised the assessment by his order passed on 2-9-1986. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Director, Excise & Taxation, Karachi, respondent No,2, who dismissed it on 17- 5-1986. The petitioners then filed a revision application before the Director General, Excise and Taxation, Government of Sindh, Karachi, who dismissed the same by his order, passed on 18-11- 1986.
3. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the orders passed by all the three respondents have filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. Mr. S.A. Rini, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the respondent No,3 was not competent to revise the valuation during the validity of the valuation list. Section 9 of the Sindh Urban Immovable Properties Tax Act, 1958, could only enable the respondent No,3 to correct entries in the existing valuation list regarding ownership of the property and he could not revise the GARV.
He, therefore, contended that all the three orders impugned herein have been passed without lawful authority. In support of his such contention, he referred to the cases reported in PLD 1977 Lah. 1060; PLD 1978 Kar. 691; and 1984 CLC 2727.
5. Mr. K.M. Nadeem, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh, appearing for the respondents, contended that the proceedings in this case were initiated on the basis of complaints made by the tenants of the building to the Director General, Excise & Taxation, Government of Sindh, Karachi, that the new landlords had increased the rents and were recovering the enhanced rents. The Director General conducted an enquiry of the- complaints--rnade to him and in exercise of his polder under section 10(2) of the said Act set aside the valuation of the said building competently and remanded the case to the Excise & Taxation Officer F & G Division, directing him to re-assess the property on the basis of actual rent to be effective from the date the petitioners had purchased it. Such orders were valid and in conformity with the provision of law. The Excise & Taxation Officer had collected information and determined the actual rent being received by the petitioners. On the basis of such record he issued a notice in Form PT-13 and informed them that he proposed to revise assessm ent to Rs,1,57,512 as the GARV under section 9(2) of the Act w,e,f. 1-1-1985. According to him, the assessm ent can be revised under section 9(2) of the said Act and the petition is liable to be dismissed. He referred to the cases reported in PLD 1977 Kar. 714 and PLD 1978 Kar.
802.
6. The petitioners at no stage of the litigation have ever disputed the amount of rent actually received by them in respect of the building in dispute which is the basis of assessment. The only point that was raised by the petitioners has been the authority of the Excise & Taxation Officer to amend the valuation list in exercise of his powers under section 9(1)(c)(iii) of the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. According to them, such power cannot be exercised by such authority during the period a valuation list already framed exists under section 7 of the said Act.
The first case relied on behalf of the petitioners reported in PLD 1977 Lah. 1060 itself lays down that a general assessm ent made under section 7 of the said Act would continue to remain in force till such time it is superseded by a fresh valuation list. It can, however, be changed under the exceptions provided under sections 9 and 10 of the said Act. In the present case the Excise and Taxation Officer revised the valuation list on the basis of orders passed by the Director General, Excise Taxation, Sindh, under section 10(2) of the said Act and on the ground that the ownership of the building in question was changed enabling him to revise the assessment in terms of section 9(1)(c)(iii) of the said Act. The other case relied on by the petitioners reported in PLD 1978 Kar. 691 related to a case which did not contemplate any change in ownership of the building. Similarly the case reported in 1984 CLC 2727 is based on facts materially different from the facts of the present case.
7. The Director General, Excise & Taxation, in exercise of powers contemplated by subsection (2) of section 10 of the said Act had examined the legality and propriety of the valuation recorded in assessm ent list in respect of the property in the case and had set aside such entry and remanded the case to Excise & Taxation Officer to assess the building due to change of ownership on the basis of actual rent which had increased since the last assessment. No exception can be taken to the exercise of such power and we are fortified in our view by the decisions in the cases reported in PLD 1977 Kar. 714 and PLD 1978 Kar.
802.
8. No other ground was urged on behalf of the petitioners in support of their petition.
9. In view of foregoing reasons we dismiss the petition with no order as to costs.