' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the requirements of Rules 3 to 9 of the Punjab, Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980 have not been complied with by the respondent municipality before it imposed license fee of Rs,5,000 on the ' Arhaties' dealing in hides and skins.
Upon being asked to show the advertisement required by the aforesaid rules, as a condition precedent to the imposition of a new tax, learned counsel appearing for the respondent municipality referred to an advertisement, dated 23-5-1999 appearing in Daily Jang, the heading of which states that it relates to the auction of annual contracts of Municipal Committee, Chichawatni. The advertisement covers four columns of the newspaper in which various auctions have been advertised. There is one single line inserted in the advertisement relating to the imposition of license fee on the 'Arhaties' dealing in hides and skins. In reply to the Court's question as to whether there was any other advertisement which had been issued by the respondent municipality in compliance with the above referred rules, learned counsel stated that there was no other advertisement apart from the one referred to above.
2. The rules provide a comprehensive and elaborate mechanism for the imposition of a fresh tax.
The advertisement relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent municipality is grossly inadequate as it does not fulfil any of the requirements of the above-referred rules. The significance and legal efficacy of compliance with the rules and the requirement of strict adherence to such rules by a Local Council, has been clearly set out in the case titled Rauf Trading Company Ltd. v. Faisalabad Municipal Corporation 1990 CLC 1732.
3. In the light of the clear mandate of the rules and in view of the afore-cited precedent, it is declared that the license fee, imposed on the petitioner as-an ' Arhati' of hides and skins, is illegal because the same is not preceded by the conditions precedents specified by the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980. The present petition is, therefore, allowed with costs.