'KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.---By way of an order, dated 1-2-2002 passed by the Additional Director General, Excise and Taxation Punjab, Lahore the value of the respondent's property for the purposes of property tax was reduced from Rs,56,292,078 to Rs,4,120,267. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer passed order, dated 13-2-2002 holding that the respondent Messrs Pace Pakistan Ltd., was entitled to refund of the amount of Rs,39,99,173 paid in excess by the petitioner. The legality of order of the Additional Director General, dated 1-2-2002 came to be examined by the High Court as well as this Court. It was held that the Additional Director General was competent to pass the revisional order under section 10(2) of the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner did not make the refund which compelled the respondent to file Writ Petition No,16255 of 2002 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The High Court allowed the petition vide judgment, dated 24-1-2003 and directed the petitioner as under:- ' I direct that the petitioner should be refunded the excess paid amount whatever is found legally due to the petitioner, within a period of one month from today".
' The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. It is contended by learned Advocate-General, Punjab that the revisional order of the Additional Director General, dated 1-2-2002 is illegal, being against the provisions of the Act and that the Director General has sought review of the order from the Executive District Officer (EDO), who has been conferred the power of the Commissioner as available under the provisions of the Act. He also contends that the learned E.D.O. Has been pleased to restrain payment of the amount pending disposal of the review.
3. In reply, Mr. Ejaz Hussain Batalvi, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondent-caveator has contended that the provision of review does not exit in the Act and the device of review has been resorted to only for denying/delaying the payment. In support of his submission, he has read before us the written objections filed before the E.D.O.
4. Since the question of availability of the power of review under the Act is pending adjudication and is to be decided by the E.D.O., it would not be proper for us to comment on the same. We however, agree with the High Court that the question of competence of the Additional Director General to pass order, dated 1-2-2002 has been determined by the High Court as well as this Court, and the same cannot be questioned on this score. The impugned judgment of the High Court is sound. In any case learned Advocate-General has not been able to show any infirmity in the same.
5. While refusing leave to appeal this petition is hereby dismissed. However, we direct the E.D.O. To decide the review petition expeditiously and in any case on or before 15th of July, 2003. Learned E.D.O. Must carefully attend the question of availability of power of review under the Act.