1969 PLP 309 (SCMR)

Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty, Government of Pakistan and another P L D 1962 S C 335 ref. Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 14th April 1969. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioners are the successors in interest of Khan Muhammad Khan Daha of Khanewal of the Multan District. He died on the 12th December 1957. His estate was assessed for the purposes of Estate Duty at the net figure of Rs. 7,63,

153. Subsequently this was further reduced to Rs. 6,56,

453. In this figure the value of the agricultural land was assessed at Rs. 5,76,

800. The heirs of the said deceased, filed an appeal before the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal as also invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of West Pakistan on the 18th October 1958, mainly on the ground that since the 23rd March 1956, when the 1956‑Constitution of Pakistan came into force, Estate Duty and agricultural land became a Provincial subject and as such the Central Government had no longer any jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, particularly, because, the said duty had since been abolished by the West Pakistan Abolition of Estate Duty (Agricultural Lands) Act, 1958. In other words, the contention of the petitioners was that after the transference of the subject from the Central List of Legislation to the Provincial List of Legislation, the Central Government ceased to have the power to even collect the duty which had accrued long prior to the coming into force of the Constitution of 1956. The High Court repelled this contention holding that by reason of the provisions of clause (6) of Article 230 of the Constitution of 1956, read along with the provisions of Article 227, clause (6) (b), the tax accrued prior to the relevant date, namely; the 23rd March 1956, would continue to be recovered by the Controller of Estate Duty. The abolition of estate duty on agricultural land by the West Pakistan Acted (XXXV of 1958) could not have any effect on this position, as the said Act was not given any retrospective effect. The pro visions of clause (3) of Article 231, relied upon by the learned counsel, were clearly of no relevance in view of the fact that Article 230 of the said Constitution of 1956, expressly dealt with the question of taxes. This specific question was elaborately dealt with also in the case of Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty, Government of Pakistan and another (P L D 1962 S C 335). The view taken by the High Court is in accord with the views taken in the above mentioned decision. We can see no ground for taking any just exception to the order of the High Court, The argument sought to be advanced by the learned counsel is clearly misconceived. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.