The petitioner is aggrieved of the recovery notice issued by Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, whereby arrears of property tax of Rs,5,36,635 along with the current demand of Rs, 87,512 for the Property Nos. 9/1 to 9/22, situated at the Mall Road, Rawalpindi Cantt. Owned by the petitioner, have been demanded.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been paying the property tax regularly and is not liable for any arrears.
3. The petition has been contested by the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, through its written reply which shows that the Annual Rental Value of the above said property owned by the petitioner was assessed by the Assessm ent Committee as under: {{TABLE}} Period A.R.V.
1-7-1990 to 31-12-1991 Rs,1,83,360 I-1-1992 to 30-6-1992 'Rs .4 , 53 ,300 1-7-1992 to 30-6-1996 Rs .4 , 08 ,630 1-7-1996 to 30-6-2002 Rs,6,48,219 ' The details of the tax demanded and paid for the above period are as under: Period A.R.V. Tax Demanded Tax Paid 1-7-1990 to 30-6-1991 1,83,60 27,504 Nil 1-7-1991 to 31-12-1991 13,752 Nil 1-1-1992 to 30-6-1992 4,53,300 33,998 24,321 1-7-1992 to 30-6-1993 4.98.630 74,795 24,321 1-7-1993 to 30-6-1994 74,795 Nil 1,7-1994 to 30-6-1995 74,795 50.000 1-7-1995 to 30-6-1996 74,795 35,000 1-7-1996 to 30-6-1997 6,48,219 97.233 35,000 1-7-1997 to 30-6-1998 97,233 35,000 1-7-1998 to 30-6-2000 97,233 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2001 97,233 1-7-2001 to 30-6-2002 97,233 Total: 9,57,832 10% rebat(-)
Total demand: 8,62,049 Paid up to 30-6-1999 2,38,642 Arrears up to 30-6-2002 6,23,407 (+)
10,463 =6,33,870 {{TABLE}}
4. It has further been alleged by the respondent-Board that all the payments made by the writ petitioner as aforementioned, are the part payments on verbal requests of the writ petitioner and he is liable to pay the arrears.
5. The above mentioned chart of payments made by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has not been paying the tax according to the tax demanded, leading to the accumulation of arrears.
The contention of the petitioner's counsel that petitioner had been paying the property tax regularly cannot be gone into and decided by this Court as it is a disputed question of fact and this Court cannot undertake the factual enquiries in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Furthermore, the petitioner's request for the reduction of Annual Rental Value, vide his application, dated 17-7-2000 was considered by the Assessm ent Committee and his request for the reduction of the Annual Rental Value was declined for the period prior to 1-7-1999. However, his request for reduction of A.R.V! For the period from 1-7- 1999 to 2002 is under consideration. The alternate remedy of appeal under section 84 read with section 87 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 is available to the petitioner and he has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court without exhausting the alternate remedies.
6. In view of the above mentioned, I see no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.