' This writ petition impugns the notice issued by the respondent No,3, dated 21-11-2001 demanding a sum of Rs,11,00,000 from the petitioner on account of property tax. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said notice of demand has been issued on the basis of a unilateral determination made by the respondent No,3 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has in fact obtained a financial lease from B.R.R. International Modaraba, respondent No,4.
' The transaction between the petitioner and the aforesaid Modaraba in fact constitutes a financial arrangement between the said two parties and cannot be treated at par with an ordinary lease whereby the owner of property rents it out to a tenant/lessee. This assertion appears to be accepted by the respondent-Department as well in the comments submitted on its behalf.
2. However, the learned Law Officer states that the petitioner has remedies by way of appeal and revision under section 10 of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, which according to him have not been availed by the petitioner before approaching this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction.
It is, however, to be noted that the said remedies are only available where an objection is decided by the respondent-Department. Furthermore, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that a new building has been constructed and as such the respondent-Department could only have assessed valuation in accordance with section 9 of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act. This too has not been done in accordance with the said statutory provisions.
3. In this view of the matter, the impugned notice, dated 21-11-2001 is set aside. The respondent- Department, however, shall not be precluded from deciding the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say, the respondent No,3 while deciding the matter shall take into account all contentions urged before him by the petitioner including the assertion made by the petitioner that the arrangement between the petitioner and B.R.R.
International Modaraba constitutes a financial transaction meant for the purpose of the financing the construction of the new building raised by the petitioner.
4. This petition is allowed in the above terms.