1. ' S. AHMED SARWANA, J.---These Constitution petitions which challenge the order, dated 21-10-1999 passed by the Director, Excise and Taxation, Government of Sindh (respondent No,2), raise common question of law; therefore, we propose to dispose all of them by a common order. It may be mentioned here that C.P No,D-1273 of 2000 was not listed for hearing in Court but with the consent of both counsel the file was called from the branch and is being disposed of with the other petitions as it involves the same point of law.
2. ' The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal 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 Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called as "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. On 26-10-1976 respondent No,2 published a Notice, among others, in the Daily Dawn, requiring all property owners, occupants and lessees of all industrial and industrial-cum-commercial-cum-residential properties situated in the Rating Area of Karachi to supply complete information with respect to their properties on the prescribed Declaration Forms in duplicate duly filled in and signed by the owners/occupiers/lessees or their authorized representatives. Consequently, the petitioners furnished the requisite information on the forms prescribed by respondent No,2. On 1-12-1976 respondent No,2 prepared a.Draft Valuation List and invited objections from the property owners. In a general letter issued by him, respondent No,2 explained the manner and the formula which had been used for determining the Annual Valuation of the property according to which a certain percentage of the cost of land and the cost of construction was made the basis of calculating the Gross Annual Rental Value of the property. The petitioners filed objections to the Draft Valuation List before the Assessing Authority challenging the jurisdiction of respondent No,2 in initiating the reassessm ent of the property. After considering the objections filed by the petitioners as well as the Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the meeting between the representative of the industrial property owners and the Finance Minister, an unanimous agreement was reached whereby the Valuation List was revised and the Annual Rental Value of the properties were fixed accordingly. The petitioners filed appeals under section 10 of the Act against the assessment.
3. During the pendency of the appeal section 8-A was added by the Act by Sindh Finance Act, 1977.
4. Section 8-A was worded as follows:-- "8-A. Valuation.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the valuation list which has been prepared in respect of the properties used wholly or partly for industrial purposes and situating within the limits of the Karachi Rating Area and has been enforced from the 1st day of January, 1977 shall be deemed to have been validly prepared and enforced." (Emphasis added).
5. ' The respondents assessed the Property Tax accordingly. However, the petitioners challenged the assessm ent, the demand and the wires of the amendment made in the Act in the High Court through several Constitution petitions including Petition No,D-1680 of 1979 which were decided by judgment dated 12-7-1982 and the respondents were directed to decide the objections of the petitioners in light of the following observation of the Court- ' We would wish the authorities concerned, to have a fresh look at the petitioners' cases and if any of their properties is found to be situating outside the limits of the Karachi Rating Area, they are bound to be reassessed in accordance with the old valuation list if they are already assessed according to the new valuation list'."
6. ' It is alleged that the respondents did not take steps to implement the above order whereupon the petitioners approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan which decided the appeals in favor of the petitioners by judgment dated 9-1-1986 reported in 1986 SCMR 1294, the concluding paragraph of which reads as follows:- "The learned Advocate-General, Sindh, has, however, now informed us that the respondents admit that the appellants are all situate either at Landhi or in the Sindh Industrial Trading Estate and, therefore, the validating clause would not be applicable in their case and they are liable to be assessed in accordance with the old valuation and not in accordance with the new valuation. The stand taken up by the appellants that they are not liable to pay tax in accordance with the new valuation has, accordingly, being vindicated. The result is that these appeals succeed and, accordingly, are allowed with costs."
7. ' Thereafter, on 10-12-1987 the said Act was again amended by the Sindh Act VIII of 1987 and section 8-A was substituted as follows:-- "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or judgment, order or decree of any Court the valuation lists which have been prepared in respect of properties used wholly or, partly for industrial purposes and situated within the limits of the Rating Area of the Karachi Division and have been forced from the 1st of January, 1977 shall always be deemed to have been validly prepared and enforced and the tax levied, charged, collected or realized." (Emphasis added).
8. ' The demands made by the Department after the 1987 Amendment were again assailed by the petitioners in the High Court and all the petitions were disposed by a common judgment dated 18- 3-1992 whereby the impugned notices/challans were set aside and the matter was remanded to respondent No,1 with the following direction:-- "We would, therefore, set aside the impugned demand notices/challans and would remand the matter to the Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department. The Secretary is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law after hearing all concerned parties, within two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order."
9. ' The Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Government of Sindh (respondent No,1) instead of disposing of the matter within two months of receipt of the order as directed by the High Court sent the matter to Director, Excise and Taxation (Taxes-I), Karachi (respondent No,2) who after hearing the parties by Order dated 21-10-1999 held that the assessment of industrial properties in the Rating Area of Karachi Division in accordance with the Valuation List dated 1-1-1977 was not contrary to the Act and the petitioners were liable to pay Property Tax accordingly subject to the remission allowed, if applicable to them.
10. ' Being aggrieved by the Order of respondent No,2 dated 21-10-1999 the petitioners filed these petitions raising several legal grounds and seeking various declarations; however, at the time of hearing they urged only one legal ground that the Amendment of section 8-A of the Act by Sindh Ordinance No,VIII of 1987 dated 10-12-1987 was mala fide and void and it could not be given retrospective effect taking away the vested rights of the petitioners to be assessed in accordance with the old list in force prior to the 1987 Amendment and consequently, no tax can be demanded on the basis of the Valuation List prepared on 1-1-1977 which is referred to in the Sindh Act VIII of 1987 dated 10-12-1987 and the Excise Department must be directed to refund the excess tax received or adjust the same towards future taxes.
11. ' Mr. Talmeez S. Burney, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Advocate- General, Sindh having conceded before the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the validating clause as amended by the Finance Act, 1977 would not be applicable to the petitioners' properties situated either at Landhi or in Sindh Industrial Trading Estate and that they would be assessed in accordance with the old valuation list, the Legislature could not thereafter amend the law and apply the provisions of the amended law for the purpose of recovery of Property Tax. He added that the petitioners had acquired a vested right to be assessed in accordance with section 8-A as amended by the Sindh Finance Act, 1977 which was in respect of properties used wholly or partly fort industrial purposes and situated within the limits of the Karachi Rating Area. As the petitioner's properties were not located in the Karachi Rating Area, they acquired vested rights in the amended section which could not be taken away by making another amendment in section 8-A in 1987 and referred to the case of New Electronics (Pvt.) Limited v. The Collector of Customs and 2 others, PLD 1994 Karachi 286. He also referred to the case of The Fecto Cement Ltd. The Collector of Customs Appraisement, 1994 MLD 1136 and also cited PLD 1984 SC 621 and PLD 1973 Karachi 360 in support of his contention.
12. ' Mr. Abdul Hadi Fareed, learned Advocate for the petitioners in C.P.No,D-1378 of 2000 reiterated the arguments of Mr. Burney and also referred to the case of Al-Samrez Enterprises v. The Federation of Pakistan, 1986 SCMR 1917, to contend that the petitioners had acquired a vested right in the Valuation List validated by the Sindh Finance Act of 1977 which could not be taken away by retrospective legislation.
13. ' In reply to the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned Advocate-General, submitted that the Legislature under the Constitution has the power to impose tax retrospectively and declare that Property ' Tax would be charged under the Valuation List prepared in 1977 and referred to the case of Golden Industries Limited v. Province of Sindh and others, PLD 1983 Karachi 76 in support of his arguments.
14. ' We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and have considered their contentions in light of the provisions of the Act and the powers of the Legislature under the Constitution, to impose tax retrospectively.
15. ' Under section 7(1) of the Act, a Valuation List is required to be made by the prescribed Authority in accordance with the rules framed under the Act for every Rating Area so as to come into force either on the first day of July or on the first day of January and thereafter a new Valuation List is required to be made after a period of every five years. A Valuation List was accordingly prepared on 1-1-1977 but according to the 1977 Amendment of section 8-A of the Act, it was applicable in respect of the properties situated within the limits of Karachi Rating Area only. As the properties of the petitioners were not located in the Karachi Rating Area as notified under the Act, the Advocate- General, Sindh conceded before the Honorable Supreme Court that the Valuation List prepared on 1-1-1977 and declared to be validly prepared and enforced by virtue of the amendment of section 8-A by Sindh Finance Act, 1977 would not be applicable to the petitioners because apparently their properties were not situated in the Karachi Rating Area as notified by the relevant authority.
16. However, by Sindh Act VIII of 1987 dated 10-12-1987, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or judgment, order or decree of any Court the Valuation List prepared in respect of all properties within the limits of the Rating Area of Karachi Division and having been in force from 1-1-1977 were declared to have been validly prepared and enforced and the tax levied, charged collected or realized was declared to have been recovered, collected and realized in accordance with law. By the 1987 Amendment the rating area was widened and described as the Rating Area of the Karachi Division which encompassed the entire area of the Karachi Division including the Karachi Rating Area which had been notified earlier by the relevant authority and the additional/remaining area of Karachi Division which had not been included in the Karachi Rating Area notified in 1977 for the purpose of levy of property tax. Thus after the 1987 Amendment, the entire area of Karachi Division without any exception became subject to payment of property tax from 1-1-1997. It may be noted here that the 1987 amended section 8-A of the Act starts with the non obstante clause which means that it shall have an overriding effect on any other provision contained to the contrary in the Act or any judgment, order or decree of any Court. Further, to remove-any doubt whatsoever, the said section also includes a "deeming" clause thereby confirming that the Legislature has declared that the valuation lists prepared and enforced from 1-1-1977 shall be treated as valid and the tax levied, collected or realized under the said valuation lists shall also be treated as valid and lawful.
17. The petitioners' counsel have not disputed that the properties of the petitioners are not situated within the limits of the Rating Area of Karachi Division. It is, therefore, clear that the Valuation List in respect of the properties situated in the Rating Area of Karachi Division including those of the petitioners would fall within the purview of section 8-A as amended by the Sindh Act VIII of 1987 and they would be liable to pay property tax thereon from 1-1-1977 at the prescribed rates.
18. ' However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the Legislature does not have the power to impose tax retrospectively. We are afraid that the contentions of the learned counsel are based upon misapprehension and misunderstanding of law. A similar question of retrospective operation of section 8-A of the Act as amended by Sindh Finance Act, 1977 involving the validity of the valuation list referred to therein came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Golden Industries (ibid), wherein the Court was pleased to repel the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to retrospective application of a taxing statute and observed as follows:-- ' The next objection is directed against the retrospective operation of the amendment. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that they had vested right to be assessed in accordance with the law that held ground at the relevant time of assessment. Since the retrospective application of the amendment has the effect of taking away that right, it is ultra vires of the legislative jurisdiction of the Assembly. This argument is obviously based on the thinking which overlooks the sovereign power of the Legislature to legislate in respect of all matters which fall within its legislative field. As pointed out earlier the only bar to which the power of the legislature is subjected is that a law produced by the exercise of the legislative power is not violative of any provision of the Constitution. Article 12 of the Constitution prohibits retrospective application of the law which authorizes punishment excepting this provision, there is no other restriction on the power of Legislature from applying any legislation retrospectively."
19. ' After discussing the law in great detail, the learned Division Bench in the aforesaid case validated the Valuation List with retrospective effect in the following words:- ' "We see nothing wrong with the amendment i,e, section 8-A of the 1958 Act which is accordingly held as intra vires of the Provincial Assembly and the Constitution."
20. ' It would not be out of place to mention here that in the case of Annoor Textile Mills Limited and another v. The Federation of Pakistan and another, PLD 1994 SC 568, relating to the amendment in West Pakistan Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 wherein the validity of the revision of the rates of minimum wages with retrospective effect was challenged, the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to hold that retrospective operation can be given by the Legislature and merely because a particular party is burdened with certain liability in consequence of the operation of law, it does not mean that any of his rights has been illegally infringed.
21. The term "vested right" has not been defined by any statute. However, according to the Venkataramaiya's Law Lexicon, 1986 Edition, Volume 4, page 2608, "a right is said to be vested when the right of enjoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of some person as a personal interest, independent of a contingency that it is a right which cannot be taken away without the consent of the person concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, from statute or by operation of law". Under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the authority that has the power to make an order has the power to undo it; but this is subject to the exception that where the order has taken a legal effect and in pursuance thereof certain rights have been created in favour of an individual, such an order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded to the detriment of those rights (Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi, PLD 1969 SC 407 and 412). No subordinate authority had passed any order which had taken legal effect and in pursuance whereof any legal right had come into existence in favour of any petitioner which was withdrawn to the detriment of his rights.
22. No right whatsoever was created in favour of or acquired by any petitioner residing outside the Karachi Rating Area. All of them were admittedly residing beyond the limits of the Karachi Rating Area and consequently this High Court by its judgment dated 12-7-1982 in C.P.No,D-1680 of 1979 directed the respondent to have a fresh look at the petitioners' cases and if any of their properties was found to be situated outside the limits of Karachi Rating Area, they were ordered to be reassessed in accordance with the old Valuation List. This Order of the High Court was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court when the Advocate-General made a statement before the Supreme Court to the effect that the validating section 8-A as added by the Sindh Finance Act, 1977 would not be applicable in their case and they would be liable to be assessed in accordance with the old Valuation List and not in accordance with the New Valuation. But the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court did not take away the power of the Legislature to levy property tax retrospectively, if it could otherwise do under the law and the Constitution. By the 1987 Amendment the Legislature levied property tax on all properties situated in the Karachi Division. By doing so, the Legislature did not violate any law or the judgments of the High Court or the Supreme Court of Pakistan in respect of the properties of the petitioners situated in the Province of Sindh.
23. ' The petitioners' argument that they acquired vested right in section 8-A of the Act which was added by the Sindh Finance Act, 1977, does not appear to be reasonable or tenable. By the aforesaid amendment the Valuation List in respect of the properties situated within the limits of the notified Karachi Rating Area was declared to be validly prepared and in force from 1-1-1977. The property owners of the Karachi Rating Area could argue that they have a vested right under section 8-A as amended by the Sindh Finance Act, 1977 because their properties are situated in the notified Karachi Rating Area; however, persons whose properties are not situated within the limits of the Karachi Rating Area cannot advance such an argument. There is nothing in section 8-A as added by Sindh Finance Act, 1977 which confers upon the owners of properties situated outside the notified Karachi Rating Area any kind of vested right or interest under any principle of law. The unreasonableness of the argument of the petitioners' counsel can be illustrated by the following example. Suppose the Sindh Legislature levies a certain lawful tax on the residents of Karachi Division by passing a law to that effect. This would not mean that vested rights would be created or would accrue in favour of the persons who are residents of other Divisions of the province or are residing outside the territorial limits of the Karachi Division and the Legislature would be powerless to impose the same lawful tax on the residents of the Province of Sindh living outside the Karachi Division at any time in future. Both, the power to impose a tax and to impose the tax retrospectively rests with the Legislature, which power it can exercise at any time unless prohibited by the Constitution. The principle of law decided in the cases of New Electronics (supra) and Fecto Cement Limited (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the present case. In the aforesaid cases the petitioners had entered into agreements with third parties after issuance of notification by the executive under the provisions of the relevant statute whereby certain contractual rights and obligations in respect of the executants of the agreements came into existence. The Court relying upon the case of Al-Samrez Enterprises, 1986 SCMR 1917, wherein it had been held that retrospective operation cannot be given to executive orders so as to destroy the contractual rights and obligations which had already accrued, granted relief to the petitioners as they were in similar position, the contractual rights and obligations having become past and closed transactions. The principle of Al-Samrez case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present petitioner as no contractual rights and obligation between the parties are involved here.
24. ' It appears that the petitioners' counsel has wrongly cited PLD 1984 SC 621 in support of his case as no judgment appears on the cited page. The case reported in PLD 1973 Karachi 360 is also not relevant as it relates to the interpretation of the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which is not an issue in the present case.
25. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners have admitted that they were given a hearing by the respondents before passing of the impugned orders. The directions of the High Court given in its judgment dated 18-3-1992 have, therefore, been complied with and the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the respondents on this count.
26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Legislature is fully empowered to impose property tax retrospectively and the amendment of section 8-A by the Sindh Act VIII of 1977 dated 10-12-1987 validating the Valuation List from 1-1-1987 is intra vires of the Act and the Constitution and consequently, the petitioners are liable to pay tax on their properties as the same are admittedly located/situated within the Rating Area of the Karachi Division in respect of which the Valuation List has been declared to be validly in force from 1-1-1977.
27. ' Consequently, all the six Constitution petitions alongwith their Interlocutory Applications are dismissed in limine with costs of Rs,1,000 each.