' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---This judgment will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.499-K to 504-K of 2001, as common questions of facts and law are involved in these matters.
2. Above matters were disposed of by a learned Division Bench, High Court of Sindh by a common judgment, dated 27-6-2001, passed in Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1376, D-1377, D-1378, D-1447, D-1448 and D-1273 of 2000, whereby the same were dismissed in limine alongwith interlocutory applications with costs of Rs,1,000 in each matter.
3. The facts relevant for decision of these petitions are that the petitioners were paying Property Tax on their industrial properties on the Annual Rental Value assessed by the Government of Sindh (Respondent No,1) under section 5 of the Sindh Man Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter called as "the Act" and the Rules framed thereunder. On 1-12-1976 the respondent No,2, Director Excise and Taxation (Taxes-I), prepared a Draft Valuation List and invited objections from the property owners. Thereafter, a meeting was convened, which was attended by the representatives of the industrial property owners and the Finance Minister. As a result of said meeting, unanimously the Valuation List was revised and the Annual Rental Value of each property was fixed. The petitioners filed appeals, under section 10 of the Act, against the assessment. During the pendency of the appeals, section 8-A was added by Sindh Finance Act, 1977 and again it was substituted by the Sindh Act No,VIII of 1987, the Sindh Government Gazette, Extr., Part IV, December, 10, 1987, which now as it stands, reads as under:-- "8-A Validation.---Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or judgment, order or decree of any Court, the valuation lists which have been prepared in respect of the properties used wholly or partly for industrial purposes and situated within the limits of the Rating Areas of the Karachi Division and have been enforced from the 1st Day of January, 1977, shall always be deemed to have been validly prepared and enforced and the tax levied, charged, collected or realized in pursuance of such lists shall always be deemed to have been validly levied, charged, collected or realized."
4. The aforesaid amendment was assailed by the petitioners in High Court and all the petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 18-3-1992, whereby impugned notices/challans were set aside and the matters were remanded to the respondent No,1, Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, with a direction, to dispose them in accordance with law, after hearing all concerned parties within two months from the date of said order.
5. It is alleged that said Secretary instead of disposing the matters himself sent them to Director, Excise and Taxation (Taxes-1) Karachi, who after hearing, the parties by order, dated 21-10-1999, held that the assessm ent of industrial properties in the rating area of Karachi Division was in accordance with Valuation List, dated 1-1-1977 and further observed that the petitioners were liable to pay property tax in accordance with section 8-A, as amended on 10-12-1987.
6. Being aggrieved by order, dated 21-10-1999, the petitioners filed Constitutional Petitions before High Court, which were dismissed.
7. It is significant to mention here that the properties of the petitioners were situated either at Landhi or in the Sindh Industrial Trading Estate (S.I.T.E.) and were not within the limits of Karachi rating area but by virtue of amendment dated 10-12-1987 the limits of rating area were extended as to include the entire Karachi Division. Admittedly now the properties of the petitioners are +within Karachi Division within the scope of section 8-A.
8. It was argued before High Court that the petitioners' properties initially were not within rating area and they acquired the vested rights, which could not be taken away by virtue of amendment dated 10-12-1987 in section 8-A and for above purpose reliance was placed, on the cases reported as New Electronics (Pvt.) Limited through Director v. The Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi and 2 others (PLD. 1994 Karachi 286), (2) the Fecto Cement Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs Appraisement (1994 MLD 1136 [Karachi]), (3) Syed Wasey Zafar and 4 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance and others (PLD 1994 SC 621) and Ahmad Corporation v.
Messrs The International Food Grain and Oil Seed, Karachi (PLD 1973 Karachi 361).
9. Dictum laid down in above cases is not attracted to these matters as the facts are distinguishable. Under the provisions of the Act the Provincial Government of Sindh is competent by notification to specify urban area where tax shall be levied. It is also competent to divide one urban area into two or more rating areas or several areas to group into one rating area.
10. It also appears from the impugned judgment that at the time of final arguments before High Court, though the petitions were filed on several legal grounds and various declarations were sought, but only one ground was urged i.e, that the amendment of section 8-A was mala fide, void and it could not be given retrospective effect, taking away the vested rights of the petitioners to be assessed in accodance with the old list. In fact; this is the only point in these petitions, which requires consideration.
11. Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned counsel for the petitioners conceded before us that retrospective effect could be given by the amendment, but strenuously argued that since the respondents accepted from the petitioners the amount of tax according to old GARV, as such, it being past and closed chapter, it could not be reopened by virtue of said amendment of section 8-A. Learned counsel also argued that the cases were remanded by High Court to the Secretary Taxation Department and the Secretary having been authorized only to exercise the delegated powers, he could not further delegate said power to Director Excise and Taxation.
12. The moot point is whether retrospective effect could be given or not to the amendment dated 10-12-1987. Law on this point is absolutely clear and such effect can be given. It is true that no statute shall be construed so as to have a retrospective operation, unless its language so permits.
In case of legislative enactment the legislature is competent to amend, vary or repeal the same.
Unequivocal and unambiguous language is used in taxing statute and it is to be looked into what is clearly stated therein. Intendment and equity are not to be explored therefrom. There is no scope of implication, while interpretating tax law, the general rule is that C "tax and equity" are strangers. It is significant to note that retrospective operation is valid if the legislature so directs, as has been done clearly in section 8-A, and such direction cannot be challenged merely on the ground that a party is burdened with the certain liability because. Of retrospective operation.
13. For above findings reference can be made to the cases reported as (1) Government of Pakistan and another v. M/s. Mardan Industries Ltd. And another (1988 SCMR 410), (2) Major General (Retd.)
Sher Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Gift Tax (PLD 1991 SC 422), (3) Annor Textile Mills Ltd. And another v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 1994 SC 568) and Gatron (Industries) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and others (1999 SCMR 1072).
14. As regards the plea that the Secretary could not transfer those cases to Director Excise and Taxation, it is clearly mentioned in the impugned judgment that the petitioners admitted before High Court that the respondent before passing the impugned order, had given an opportunity of being heard. Be that as it may, even if the Secretary would have decided those cases otherwise, still the decision of this Court would have been the same as was recorded by High Court the simple question was of interpretation of section 8-A with reference to retrospective effect, which was rightly answered by High Court.
15. In consequence, we do not find any merits in these petitions and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.