' According to the petitioners a fresh schedule was drawn up in November, 1976 vide Annexure 'A' for the purpose of amending the previous schedule which was already in force. A public notice was given under rule 4 of Pakistan Municipal Committees (Imposition of the Taxes) Rules, 1960, by respondent No, 2 Municipal Committee Mandi Bahauddin with regard to the proposals of taxation.
It was specified that objections in relation to the proposed taxation would be received by respondent No, 2 by 30th of November, 1976 and the hearing of the objections would take place on 8th of December, 1976. According to the petitioners the other mandatory requirements as laid down by sub-rule (2) of rule 4 were not followed before the publication of the proposed taxation.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that various objections were filed against the proposed taxation before respondent No, 2 but no meeting of any sub-committee to be appointed by respondent No, 2 under sub-rule (2) of rule 5 for hearing the objections was ever held. It is submitted that nothing was heard in this behalf for next 18 months till the Octroi Contractor of the Municipal Committee started collecting octroi duty according to the rates indicated in the official Gazette published on 17-8-1977. It is submitted that the imposition of taxes vide the notification dated 30-4-1976 published on 17-8-1977 is illegal being in violation of the provisions and the requirements of rules 4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid rules of 1960 requiring respondent No, 2 to publish the preliminary taxation proposals immediately for the annual budget or the revised budget as the case may be, hearing of objections and suggestions, to the said preliminary proposals under rule 5, finalization of the taxation proposals under rule 6 and sanction of the Government with regard to the taxation proposals.
3. The relevant record maintained by respondent No, 2 has been called and perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.?
' It reveals that prior to the publication of octroi schedule in November; 1976 preliminary proposals for fresh taxation to be incorporated in the revised budget of the Municipal Committee were initiated under rule 3. They we published as required by rule 4 on 18-12-1974 inviting objections till 9-1-1975. A sub-Committee was duly constituted by the then Administrator of the Municipal Committee under rule 5(2) vide his order dated 17-1-1975.
' The sub-Committee submitted its report on 25th of January, 1975, stating that since no objections and suggestions had been received, therefore, the taxation proposals be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner. Accordingly the taxation proposals were forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner on 30-5-1975. A notice was also published in the press that since the taxation proposals had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, it was open to the public to send their objections, if any. The aforesaid proposals were forwarded to the Commissioner on 12-11-1975 with the recommendation that the same may be sanctioned. When the aforesaid proposals were awaiting sanction in the office of the Commissioner, a Circular Letter dated 21-2-1976 was received from the Government that the taxation proposals were no longer required to be sanctioned by the Controlling Authority under section 138 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975 as the Local Councils, according to the said provisions, were themselves competent to grant sanction to such proposals the relevant record shows that the aforesaid taxation proposals were sanctioned by the Administrator, respondent No, 2 on 30-4-1976 and the notification was sent to the Government Press for its publication in the Gazette. The notification, however, did not appear in the Gazette while in November, 1976 under some misconception the then Administrator of the Municipal Committee decided to levy the taxes afresh and a preliminary notice in this behalf inviting objections was issued. It was, however, in May, 1977 that the mistake was detected. It was decided that since all the formalities required by the aforesaid rules had been followed for levying the taxes by the Municipal Committee, therefore, the taxation Schedule issued in November, 1976 should be withdrawn. The record shows that the aforesaid schedule was accordingly withdrawn and the draft notification which was sent to the Government Press was published in the Gazette on 17-8-1977. After the publication thereof the taxes as mentioned therein were enforced with effect from 6-12-1977.
4. The relevant record shows, as discussed above, that schedule containing fresh proposals for taxation was wrongly issued in November, 1976 rather on the contrary the draft notification of 30th April, 1976 sent by the respondent No, 2 for publication in the official Gazette should have been pursued and got published. In view of the above the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners pale into insignificance. Since the necessary procedure for levying taxes was followed, therefore, the taxes imposed vide notification dated 30-4-1976 were validly imposed.
5. It has been contended by Mr. Shahzad Jahangir, learned counsel for the petitioners, that even if it is accepted for the arguments sake that the procedure, as prescribed by rules 3 to 6 of 1960, has been followed, since the sanction for imposition of the taxes has not been granted by the Government under rule 7, therefore, the Gazette notification would be ineffective and the taxes in question cannot be realised by the Municipal Committee. He further argued that under section 145 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975, all taxes have to be levied by a Local Council as provided by the rules and since 1960 Rules had been saved by the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975, therefore, in the absence of the procedure prescribed by rule 7 having not been followed, taxes levied by the Municipal Committee cannot be realised. I am afraid the contentions raised above have no force.
6. According to section 138 of Punjab Local Government Act, 1975, a Local Council subject to the provisions of any law may and if directed by the Government shall levy all or any of the taxes enumerated in the Second Schedule. Section 145 of the Act provides that all taxes levied by a Local Council shall be imposed, assessed etc. In such manner as may be provided by rules. Section 140 of the Act provides that the Government can direct a Local Council to levy any tax, to increase or reduce any such tax or the assessment thereof to such an extent as may be specified or to suspend or abolish the levy of any tax. The language used in section 138 shows that taxes can be levied by a Local Council of its own or otherwise at the direction of the Government which according to section 140 can even direct a Local Council to increase or reduce any such taxes or to suspend or abolish the same. The learned counsel has relied upon section 145 of the Act in order to show that rule 7 of 1960 Rules, being a mandatory provision has not been followed and as such the taxes imposed cannot be realised. The aforesaid section provides that all taxes levied by a Local Council shall be imposed, assessed, abolished and regulated in such manner as may be provided by the rules. It means that so far as rules 3 to 6 are concerned, the procedure laid down therein has to be followed. Preliminary taxation proposals have to be made, they have to be published inviting objections from the public, such objections have to be disposed of under rule 5 and taxation proposals have to be finalised under rule 6. The provisions as contained in sections 138, 140 and 145 have to be read together. Their bare reading would show that the provision as contained in section 7 of 1960 Rules has become redundant in view of section 138 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975 as the Local Councils have been empowered to sanction the taxation proposals themselves.
' The learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the rates of taxes, as mentioned in the notification of 30th April, 1976 have not been incorporated in the notification gazetted on 17-8- 1977. Mr. Talib Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the previous taxation proposals, as invited in April, 1976, were in terms of maunds and seers while the notification issued vide Gazette dated 17-8-1977 shows the rates in terms of metric system. He submits that otherwise there is no difference in the rates and the notification has been published in the Gazette according to the rates as given on 30-4-1976.
However, if there is any such difference in the rates the same can be brought to the notice of the Government under section 140 of the Act of 1975 under which the Government can make necessary directions to the Local Councils with regard to the imposition of taxes.
8. There is another aspect of the case which needs consideration. According to section 140 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975 the Government can reduce the taxes imposed by a Local Council. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that any party aggrieved against the imposition of such taxes can file a revision or representation as the case may be before the Government under this provision which will be disposed of on merits. According to him such representations have already been received and disposed of by the Government. That being the position, remedy provided by section 140 of the Act is available to the petitioners.
' If they feel aggrieved against the taxation levied by respondent No, 2, they can approach the Government under the aforesaid provision of law. It will decide the matter after hearing the petitioners.
9. In view of the above discussion, there is no force in the petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.