Z. A. CHANNA, J.---The petitioner, Hyderabad Rehabilitation Trust, is the owner of a Ceramic Factory in the Landhi Industrial Area, which bears Property Unit No. HG/9-D/9. The said property unit was assessed by the Assessing Authority, during the general survey conducted in the year 1970-71 at Rs. 90,000. On appeal, the Director, Excise and Taxation, reduced the Ground Annual Rental Value (hereinafter to be referred to as the G. A. R. V.) of the said property to Rs. 56,000. On 15-12-1973, the Director-General, Excise and Taxation, Sind, in exercise of suo Motu revisional powers conferred upon him under section 10(2) of the Sind Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, enhanced the G.
A. R. V. Of the said property to Rs. 1,39,356, in consequence whereof a sum of Rs. 98,797.58 was sought to be recovered from the petitioner as property tax, for the period 1970 to 1974, in addition to the amount of Rs. 29,131.22 already paid by it as property tax. It is this notice and the order of the Director-General, in consequence whereof the notice has been issued, which have been impugned by the petitioner in this Constitutional Petition.
2. The impugned order of the Director-General was passed after giving due notice to the petitioner and was based on a joint survey conducted by officers of the Excise and Taxation Department and the representative of the petitioner. In the joint survey it was found that whereas the actual covered area of the property in question was 1,12,800 sq. Ft,, the existing assessment had been made only on the basis of covered area of 80,139 sq. Ft., and thus the remaining covered area of 32,661 sq. Ft. Had escaped assessm ent. It is an admitted position that the assessment of the petitioner's Ceramic Factory is to be based on the following data :-
(i) Size of the plot.
(ii) Covered area.
(iii) Boundary wall.
(iv) Platform.
3. In the proceedings before the learned Director-General, the petitioner did not contest the area of the plot, which was found to be 6,854 acres. However, it raised the following objections in regard to the covered area, boundary walls and tanks :-
(i) The industrial/non-industrial construction RCC (1,07,361 sq. Ft.) includes 3,168 sq. Ft. Shown to be mezzanine is not there. It is a working arrangement within the covered area to feed the machines installed.
(ii) The open tank in the garden, 1,056 Sq. Ft. Is abandoned and is of no utility.
(iii) The running area of the wall (boundary) includes 715 running feet of wall which has already been included in the assessm ent of the adjoining factory.
4. All these objections were upheld by the Director-General, who thereafter proceeded to assess the remaining covered area, etc. As follows :- Industrial/non-industrial RCC 1,07,361 sq. Ft. Less mezzanine 3,168 sq. Ft --Rs. 1,04,193Rs. at 5 o costat Rs. 20 1,04,193 per sq. Ft.
Industrial/non-industrial ACC 4706 sq. Ft. At 5 % costat Rs. 153,530 per sq. Ft.
Base of chimney of fire bricks 49 sq. Ft. At 5 % cost at Rs. 300735 per. Sq. Ft.
Water tanks 1160 sq. Ft.
(leaving tank of 1056 sq. FtRs. at 5 % cost.At Rs. 201,160 per sq. Ft Boundary wails---2760 running ft. Less 715 running ft.
2045 running ft. At 5% costat Rs. 8818 per sq. Ft, Platforms 2288 sq. Ft at 5 % cost andat Rs. 1114 per sq. Ft Furance of firebricks 3543 sq. Ft. At 5 % costat Rs. 30053,145 `per sq. Ft. ---- 1,63,695 Less 20 per cent. Depreciation32,739 1,30,956 7 acres land at Rs. 30,000 per acre at 4% cost of land8,400 1,39,356
5. The G. A. R. V. Of the petitioner's Ceramic Factory having been enhanced to Rs. 1,39,356, the petitioner was called upon to pay the outstand--ing dues of the factory as follows :---- YearAmount of propertyAmount ofBalance tax dueP. T. Receiveddue.
1970-71Rs. 31,355.10 Rs. 4,056.30Rs. 27,298.80 CF627.10CF81.14 CF545.96 1971-72Rs.310355.10Rs.5,040.00Rs.25,331.40 CF627.10CF19.68 CF607.42 983.70 1972-73Rs.31,355.10Rs.12,600.00Rs.18,755.10 CF627.10CF50.40CF576.70 1973-74Rs.31,355.10Rs. 6,300.00Rs.25,055.10 CF627.10CFCF627.10 Rs. 1,27,928.80Rs. 29,131.22Rs. 98,797.58
6. Mr. Khalid Hameed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order of the Director-General on the following grounds :----
(a) that the order in question .Was not passed by the Director-General in exercise of his suo motu revisional powers, inasmuch as he had acted on the basis of a report submitted to him by his subordinate officers, as admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 3;
(b) that the Director-General could revise the orders of the appellate authority only if there was an illegality or impropriety in the appellate order, but the impugned order of the Director-General far from pointing out any illegality or impropriety in the appellate order, even makes no reference thereto ;
(c) that in passing the impugned order, the Director-General (respondent No. 2) exceeded his powers, as in fact he has assessed the property as an independent assessing authority and not as a revising authority ; and
(d) that in any case, the impugned order cannot be given retrospective effect, as sought to be done by the Excise and Taxation Department.
7. In order to examine the various contentions raised by the learned counsel, it may be appropriate to reproduce subsection (2) of section 10 of the Sind Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. The said subsection reads as follows :---- "(2) The Commissioner or such other officer as may be appointed by the Government by notification in this behalf, may of his own motion at anytime, or on application made within a period of one year from the date of the taking of any proceedings or passing of any order by an authority subordinate to the Commissioner, call for and examine the record of the proceedings or the order for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the same and may pass such order in reference thereto as he may consider fit."
8. It was not disputed that the Director-General, Excise and Taxation, has been notified by the Government to exercise revisional powers under the aforesaid subsection. A bare perusal of this subsection shows that the revising authority may at any time, of its own motion, call for the record of the proceedings taken or order passed by a subordinate authority and revise the same if it finds any Illegality or impropriety therein. The period of limitation is prescribed only in those cases where an application is made to the revising authority, presumably by a party aggrieved. Information sub--mitted to the Director-General by his assistants or subordinates cannot be considered for the purposes of the above subsection as an application made to him praying for the exercise by him of revisional powers. In acting on such information, the Director-General would obviously be acting on his own motion and not on an application. Realising the weakness of his submission, Mr. Khalid Hamid did not press his contention in this behalf.
9. So far as the next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, namely that there was no illegality or impropriety in the order of the appellate authority which could be revised by the Director-General, we may refer to the fact that considerable covered area of the petitioner's property in question admittedly had escaped assessment. The joint survey conducted by the Excise and Taxation Department and the representative of the petitioner confirmed this position.
This clearly shows that the order g of the appellate authority fixing the G. A. R. V. Of the petitioner's property at Rs. 56,000 was illegal and improper, in that it was based on an erroneous view of the covered area of the petitioner's factory.
10. We also find no substance in the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 has acted as an, independent assessing authority and not as a revising authority.
The learned Director---General has revised the order of the appellate authority on the basis of the joint survey wherein it was admittedly found that the covered area of the petitioner's factory was considerably more than what had been assessed by the appellate authority. In revising the appellate order on the basis of the true covered area of the petitioner's factory respondent No. 2 cannot be said to have either exceeded his powers or acted contrary to the law. He had accordingly corrected an obvious error in the order of the appellate authority and he has full powers, as the revisional authority, to do so under the law.
11. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, that the impugned order cannot be given retrospective effect, is covered by our judgment in Constitutional Petitions Nos. 257 and 529 of 1976. In those cases we had held as follows :- "7. It was also contended by Mr. Salim Akhtar that G. A. R. V. Cannot be amended with retrospective effect. The learned Advocate-General, on the other hand, pointed out that according to the Scheme of the said Act, first a draft valuation list is to be prepared and published, in respect of which objections are invited and heard. Even after the valuation list is finalized, the Assessing Authority has been empowered to make amendments in the valuation list in order to bring the list in accord with existing circumstances. Furthermore, the entries in the valuation list are subject to appeal and revision under section 10 of the said Act. Obviously, if any entries in the valuation list are modified in accordance with the provisions of section 9 or 10 of the said Act, such modifications or amendments would ordinarily take retrospective effect from the date when the valuation list came into force, except in those cases where the amendments or modifications are the result of subsequent events; such as construction of new buildings after the completion of the valuation list, destruction of, damage to or alteration of any building since the last valuation, proprietary changes in the ownership or use of any building, such as when a building is self-occupied or is used for a school or a charitable trust, etc. Since the tax is to be collected on the basis of the valuation list, if an entry in the valuation list is modified, then the tax would ordinarily be leviable for the whole of the assessm ent period in accordance with the new entry in the valuation list, except of course in special cases, some of which have been mentioned by us above."
12. We accordingly are of the opinion that there is no substance in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. We would, therefore, dismiss this petition with costs.
I. MAHMUD, J.-I agree.