Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 1926 of 1980, decided on 24th April, 1981.

‑‑And Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); S. 115‑Levy of tax‑Jurisdic tion of Municipal Committee to revise or enhance taxes‑Report of Sub Committee‑Municipal Committee, held, may reject report of Sub Committee appointed under Rules and not bound to accept same in all cases.

Rana Abdul Rahim for Petitioner.

Malik Iqbal Rasool for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 24th June, 1981.

The facts giving rise to this petition, in brief are that Municipal Committee Karor Pakka by Notifications Nos. 1458/23 and 1459/19 dated 16‑11‑79 imposed enhanced taxes by revising their Octroi Schedule. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the enhanced taxes were imposed without jurisdiction. Alongwith the suit, the petitioners filed an application for temporary injunction paying that the new Schedule should not be put in operation. The learned Civil Judge, Lodhran allowed temporary injunction restraining the respondent from receiving the enhanced rates of taxes. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed an appeal and the learned District Judge, Multan vide his other dated 29‑10‑80 vacated the stay order, hence this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that notification through which enhanced taxes have been imposed has no legal sanctity for the reason that the provisions of West Pakistan Municipal Committee (Imposition of Taxes) Rules 1960 were not complied with and as such Municipal Committee had no jurisdiction to revise or enhance the rates of taxes. Learned counsel explains that under the Rules, a Sub‑Committee shall be appointed to hear the objections of the public, draw up a report and submit the same to Municipal Committee to be considered in a specially convened meeting and the Municipal Committee would either approve with or without modifi cation or drop the proposal. Learned counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the Sub‑Committee had suggested that the rates should not be enhanced and since this report was approved by the special Committee, the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to proceed further. The learned counsel also submitted that Sub‑Rules 6, 7 and 8 of Rules 6 have not been followed.

3. As. against this the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no legal flaw in the issuance of notification. The Municipal Committee is competent to reject the report of Sub‑Committee. He argues that in view of the notification No. S‑O‑VI (LG)1(26)/78 the Municipal Committee is competent to revise the taxes.

4. I have considered the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the Municipal Committee may reject the report of Sub‑Committee and is not bound to accept the same in all cases. I find that in view of the notification referred to in para. 3 of this judgment‑(Marked "A" by me) the Municipal Committee was competent to revise the rates of taxes. I further find that the petitioners would not suffer any irreparable loss and balance of convenience is also not in his favour.

5. The learned appellate Court has applied its mind to legal and factual aspect of the case keeping in mind the pre‑requisites for the issuance of temporary injunction and has exercised its jurisdiction legally and properly.

6. For the foregoing reason I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interference under section 115, C. P. C. Dismissed. No order as to costs.

M.Y.M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.