STATION COMMANDER, CHAKLALA CANTT. versus COL. (R) MUHAMMAD ABBAS MALIK
Sections 60 to 63, 220, 232 and 255 increase the water charges through the cantonment board, the terms water charges and the water tax plaintiffs of the Cantonment Act 1924 have filed a lawsuit against the defendants for a declaration and a permanent injunction to be increased. Can be done. The water tax was illegal by the defendants and without the legal authority the plaintiff's opinion was that the board could impose water charges on itself and was not obliged to follow the procedure laid down under sections 60 to 63 of the Cantonment Act 1924. And had to send the matter to the central government for approval. Through the trial court, the appellate court set aside the trial court's accuracy decision under Sections 60, 61 and 255 of the Cantonment Act, 1924, with the prior approval of the board, the central government, imposing any such tax in any cantonment. As may be imposed under any law for the time being. Being enforced, it can be applied to any municipality in which such a shadow was located. The exchange of taxes, the board was required to publish a notice in which persons or persons belonging to the class or property, Proposals for tax liability with details of these were posted for objections and final suggestions will be submitted after hearing the objections. The Central Government was to be placed before Section 232 of the Cantonment Act, 1924, only to establish and establish charges for the establishment of communication with important pipes for the supply of water or gas to the Board, and for the testing of meters. Also allowed to charge and charge meters and other devices. Quality and quantity of water or gas supply
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
