Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑S. 10(2)‑‑Enhancement of annual rental value of property‑‑Order passed in suo motu revisional jurisdiction‑‑Limitation‑‑Where order for enhancement of annual rental value of property was passed not on application of any person, but was passed by Authority in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction vested in such Authority under S. 10(2), question of time limit for such suo motu revision, held, would be of little importance and order passed by Authority could not be set aside simply because revision was entertained after expiry of limitation period.‑‑[Limitation].

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑West Pakistan Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958), S.10(2)‑‑Principle of natural justice, violation of‑‑Proof‑‑Authority below, before passing order for enhancement of annual rental value of property in its suo motu revisional jurisdiction, affording petitioner opportunity to be heard, but same not availed of‑‑Petitioner, held, could not be permitted to raise plea that they have been condemned unheard in circumstances.

Ejaz Anwar for Petitioners.

S.M. Zubair Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondent.

This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 calls in question orders dated 26‑5‑1982 and 9‑8‑1984 respectively passed by the Commissioner and Director‑General (Excise and Taxation), Punjab (respondent No.l) and Collector and Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore Division, Lahore (respondent No.2).

2. The facts of the case as set up in this petition briefly stated are that the petitioners are the owners of Property No. S‑38‑R‑235 commonly known as 235, Circular Road, Lahore which had been assessed at the annual rental value of Rs.14,700. The annual rental value of the said property was, however, increased to Rs.34,200 vide the impugned order.

The petitioners preferred an appeal against the aforementioned order to the Director, Excise and Taxation (Appeals and Inspection), Lahore, respondent No.2, which was filed as the impugned order in appeal had been passed by the Director‑General, Excise and Taxation in exercise of powers under section 10 (2) of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 and was not appealable before the Director Excise and Taxation (Appeals and Inspection) Lahore. This order was passed by the Director on 9‑8‑1984 whereafter the petitioners instituted the present constitutional petition on 23‑2‑1985. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended:

First, that the impugned order of the Commissioner and Director‑General (Excise and Taxation) Punjab was passed in the absence of the petitioners and without notice to them and when the petitioners preferred appeal/revision it was dismissed by the Collector and Director Excise and Taxation (A&R) by order dated 9‑8‑1984 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction and thereafter the review application before the Commissioner and Director‑General (Excise and Taxation) Punjab was also filed on the ground that he had no power to review his own order which has left the petitioners without any remedy.

Secondly that by passing the impugned order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction the petitioners' right of appeal has been jeopardized;

Thirdly, that the revision was entertained after the expiry of the period of limitation; and

Lastly that the order is mala fide inasmuch as the assessment made afresh for the period commencing 1‑7‑1986 in the year 1985 of the same property has been made at lower figure than the one made vide the impugned order.

4. On the contrary the learned Assistant Advocate‑General has submitted

(i) that the order impugned in this petition was passed by the Commissioner and Director‑General (Excise and Taxation), Punjab, not on the revision of any person but suo motu in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under section 10(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, therefore, the question of the revision being out of time did not arise. He further submitted in the above context that Zahid Ali, a tenant of the petitioners only made a complaint to the Secretary of the Department. who brought this fact to the notice of the Director/ General for such action as may be deemed fit by him;

(11) that notices had been served on the petitioners but they did not care to appear before the Commissioner and Director‑General (Excise and Taxation) Punjab. The learned Assistant Advocate/ General showed the issuance of the notice to the petitioners and receipt thereof by them. from the record of the Department;

(iii) that the assessment in question was finalized on 1‑2‑1981, list under section 8(2) was published soon thereafter inviting objections before 2‑3‑1981 and the same was published on 30‑8‑198which became operative w.e.f. 1‑7‑1981. The complaint of the tenant, it was pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, was filed on 2‑1‑1982 and, therefore, even if it be assumed that the impugned order was passed on the revision of some person the same had been filed within time, the period prescribed, therefore, being one year;

5. I am afraid the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have no force. It has been correctly pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that the impugned order had been passed in exercise of the suo motu revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner and Director General (Excise and Taxation) Punjab as conferred upon him by section 10(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 and, therefore, the question of the revision being out of time did not A arise. Apart altogether from the above position it is clear from the record that even the complaint of the tenant which was received in the office of the Secretary of the Department and referred to the Director General, Punjab was filed on 2‑1‑1981, that is within one year of the last date for receipt of the objections. There is thus, no defect in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by respondent No.1.

As regards the contention that the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioners, I suffice by observing that the record shows that a notice was issued to the petitioners before passing of the impugned order but they did not care to appear before respondent No.1 and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be legitimately permitted to raise the contention that they had been condemned unheard.

The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that their right of appeal has been jeopardized also has no force in the light of the discussion made above in that before passing the revisional order in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction respondent No.1 had afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners but they failed to avail of the same, therefore, they cannot be permitted to raise the plea that they have been condemned unheard and that they have been left irremediable by any act of the functionaries.

Adverting now to the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order is mala fide as the annual rental value assessment made in the year 1986 is less than the one made vide the impugned order, I may observe that this is a wholly incorrect assertion. I had sent for the complete record of the assessment and have found out that the property which consists of a Chobara and nine shops when it was owned by a single person in the year 1981 was assessed to Rs.34,200 by the impugned revisional order whereas in the proceedings taken for the assessment period commencing 1‑7‑1986 the same property, a part of which has since been given by petitioner No. 1 to his son has been separately assessed as separate units but the total annual rental value of the whole of the property has been assessed at Rs.38,820 which cannot be said to be less than the assessment made in the year 1981.

In view of the foregoing discussion I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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