This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 10030, 10031, 10032, 10033, 10034, 10035, 10036, 10037, 10038, 10039, 10040, 10041, 10042, 10043, 10044, 10045, 10046, 10047, 10048, 10049, 10093, 8094, 5062, 8613, 7784, 7785 and 9789 of 1992, as the common question of law and facts is involved in all these petitions.
2. The petitioners, in all these petitions, are running various industries described in this Petition at places which earlier fell within the jurisdiction of Union Council Sharqpur Khurd. By means of a notification dated 15-9-1991, the said Union was upgraded and reconstituted as a Town Committee to be known as Town Committee Kot Abdul Malik (respondent No.2 herein). This respondent, by a notification dated 25-4-1992 published in the Punjab Gazette on 13-5-1992 levied various taxes detailed in the said Notification including octroi duty and fixed tax of Rs.10,000 on every industry.
The petitioners objected to the levy of these taxes but their objections were repelled. They went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was rejected on 26-7-1992. They have now invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing these petitions.
3: Originally, learned counsel for the petitioners had challenged the vires of notification dated 15-9- 1991, whereby respondent No.2 had been upgraded as Town Committee. However, learned counsel' withdrew his attack in view of the notification subsequently issued by the Provincial Government and stated that the notifications aforesaid shall be separately challenged. Accordingly, the petitions to that extent, were dismissed as having been withdrawn.
4. The other two questions arising in this Petition are regarding the validity of the fixed annual tax and of octroi duty levied by respondent No.2. vide notification dated 25-4-1992.
5. So far as the fixed annual .tax is concerned, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has stated that the levy in question is not a tax but is a fee for obtaining licences for carrying on dangerous and offensive trade within the limits of the Town Committee. The learned counsel has further stated that the aforesaid fee shall be demanded from those industries, which obtain licence from respondent No.2.
In view of this statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the amount of Rs.10,000 is not a tax but is a licence fee, the petition has borne fruit to that extent.
6. The only question, which, therefore, remains is as to whether the octroi duty has been validly levied. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980, and contended that the mandatory procedure laid down by these rules has been ignored by respondent No.2, while levying the tax. It was pointed out that according to rule 3, it is at the time for the preparation of annual or revised budget that the Chairman of the Local Council is called upon to assess its financial situation and then formulate an opinion as to whether any further taxation is necessary. According to the learned counsel, in the present case, no budget was prepared and as such question of formulation of opinion that further taxation was necessary did not arise. It was also argued that the Chairman instead of proceeding in the matter himself, referred it to a Sub-- Committee and it was on the recommendations of the Sub-Committee that the taxation in question was levied. The formation of the Sub-Committee and the recommendations made by it, according to the learned counsel, were wholly unauthorized and of no legal effect.
7. It was further maintained that rule 4 of the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980, was not complied with by respondent No.2, as public notice in terms thereof was not published. The learned counsel pointed out that although the notices had appeared in the daily `Nawa-i-Waqt' and `Pakistan' of 14-3-1992 but the said notices fell short of legal requirements inasmuch as the schedule of proposed taxes was not published nor the public was made aware of the rates at which the taxes were to be levied.
8. In reply, Rana Muhammad Arshad, the learned Additional Advocate --General, Punjab, and Mr. Ali Ahmad Awan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.2, have denied that the budget was not prepared by the local council. A copy of the budget has been produced to show that annual budget was not only prepared but it was also approved by the Town Committee in its meeting dated 30-6-1992 in which an amount of Rs.86,00,000 has been shown as the receipts from octroi duty. That being so, the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that no budget was prepared, does not hold good.
9. As regards the objection relating to the formation of the Sub --Committee, it was admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that a Sub-Committee comprising the Chairman and other members of the local council was constituted. It has, however, been explained by them that the Sub-- Committee was formed only for the purpose of making recommendations, which were taken into account by the Chairman while deciding to propose the levy of tax. No rule or authority has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioners to show that the Chairman could not set up a Sub-Committee to hold an inquiry into the financial position of the local council and to make its recommendations. The Chairman could certainly obtain the necessary information from any source, which he desired in order to form his opinion regarding future course of taxation. If he chose to set up a Sub-Committee for that purpose, on no valid basis can it be objected to. It was, of course, for the Chairman to accept or reject the recommendations which were not binding on him. Be that as it may, the Chairman himself had presented the taxation proposal to the local council and also fully participated in the meeting, in which the taxation proposal; was approved. In these circumstances, technical non--compliance, if any, with rule 3 is of no significance. .
10. Reverting now to the other contention of learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the defect in publication of the notice in the newspaper, it is to be seen that it is provided by Section 174
(4) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, a notice meant for information of the general public can be given either by publication thereof in a newspaper or by affixing it on the notice board of the local council. According to the record produced by respondent No.2, the notice and the schedule were duly affixed and exhibited on the notice board of the local council.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has disputed the correctness of the statement of respondent No.2 regarding the affixation of notice on the notice board. It is, however, to be seen that no plea regarding the non-affixation of notice on the notice board was taken in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioners. As a matter of fact, what was contended by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner in appeal and has been reiterated by their learned counsel before this Court is that the notices published in the two newspapers were defective, as the details of the item on which the tax was proposed to be levied have not been specified in the notice. Nothing, however, was said about the other mode of service, i.e. by affixation, which was as effectual as a notice published in the newspaper. Consequently, even if the notice published in the newspaper was defective in some essential particulars, it would not make difference.
12. Even otherwise, there is hardly any force in the contention that the notice published in the newspaper was defective. Although it is correct that the particulars of the goods on which the tax was proposed to be levied and the rates of taxation were not mentioned in the notices appearing in the newspaper, but it was specifically provided therein that the schedule of the proposed taxation containing all these particulars was available and could be inspected at the office of the Town Committee. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had gone to the Town Committee and the schedule was not made available. On the other hand, it is obvious from the contents of the memorandum of appeal filed by them before the Deputy Commissioner that they did not make any effort to obtain information from the office of the Town Committee at all.
13. Be that as it may, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate as to what prejudice had been caused to them by non-publication of the schedule in the newspaper. Admittedly, the petitioners filed their objections to the levy of tax which were considered and repelled. It cannot be said that they had no notice of the proposed taxation.
All these petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.