2022 PLP 1938 (MLD)
QURESHI TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Assistant Manager — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT COUNCIL, CHAK SHAHANA ROAD, KHANEWAL through Chairman and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 1938 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QURESHI TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Assistant Manager — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT COUNCIL, CHAK SHAHANA ROAD, KHANEWAL through Chairman and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Local Government Act (XVIII of 2013) [since repealed], (a) Punjab Local Government Act (XVIII of 2013) [since repealed] |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 1938 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Local Government Act (XVIII of 2013) [since repealed], (a) Punjab Local Government Act (XVIII of 2013) [since repealed] as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 1938 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 1938 (MLD) (QURESHI TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Assistant Manager — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT COUNCIL, CHAK SHAHANA ROAD, KHANEWAL through Chairman and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Petitioners.
- Pir Ahmad Shah Khagga for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.115 & Entry No. 2, Part II, Third Schedule
Taxes to be levied
Fees for license, sanctions and permits granted by the District Council
Scope
Petitioners challenged the notification issued by District Council levying taxes and fees of various nature
District Council was empowered to levy taxes and fees
License fee in the impugned notification had been levied on the petitioners which were textile mills
However, the Entry on which reliance had been placed for levy of license fee specifically stated that the fee shall be in respect of a license granted by the District Council
No material was on record which would show that the District Council had indeed granted any license to the petitioners for carrying out any profession and for which the fee was sought to be levied by the impugned notification
Not sufficient to state merely that since there was a power in the District Council to levy any fee or tax irrespective of whether that came within the ambit of the relevant Entry or not
Prior to that the onus was on the District Council to establish that the person in respect of whom a levy had been imposed was carrying on a profession which required a license to be taken out
Unless this was established no fee could be imposed on that person on the pretext of license fee
Constitutional petitions were allowed and the notification to the extent of petitioners was held to be void and was struck down.
S.115 & Entry No. 2, Part II, Third Schedule
Taxes to be levied
Fees for license, sanctions and permits granted by the District Council
Scope
Held, in order for a person to be liable for payment of license fee, it must be established as a pre-condition that the person carried on a business or a profession which in fact required a license in the first place
Without such a pre-condition having been fulfilled the mere levy of license fee was ultra vires and without lawful authority.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID KARIM, J.
This order will also decide connected petition W.P No.7766 of 2019. Both the constitutional petitions challenge the notification dated 6.3.2018 issued by the District Council Khanewal levying taxes and fees of various nature. This has been done under the Punjab Local Government Act 2013 and in particular under Sections 115 and 116 of the Act, 2013 which empower a local government to levy any tax, fee, rate, toll or surcharge specified in the third schedule. Part II of third schedule of the Act, 2013 deals with taxes and other levies by District Councils and reliance has been placed on the Entry relating to fees for licenses, sanctions and permits granted by District Council.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon various judgments as also the Entry in the fourth schedule to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to contend that taxes on corporation can only be levied by the Federal Government. However, it is not necessary to go into that question. Suffice to say that District Council is empowered to levy taxes and fees to be notified by District Council. In the notification the license fee has been levied on the petitioners which arc textile mills. However, the Entry on which reliance has been placed for levy of license fee specifically states that the fee shall be in respect of a license granted by the District Council. There is no material on record which would show that the District Council Khanewal has indeed granted any license to the petitioners for carrying out any profession and for which the fee is sought to be levied by the impugned notification. It would not suffice to state merely that since there is a power in the District Council to levy taxes and fees, the District Council is at liberty to levy any fee or tax irrespective of whether that comes within the ambit of the relevant Entry or not. Also prior to that the onus lies on the District Council to establish that the person in respect of whom a levy has been imposed is carrying on a profession which requires a license to be taken out. Unless this is established no fee can be imposed on that person on the pretext of license fee. To reiterate, in order for a person to be liable for payment of license fee, it must be established as a pre condition that that person carries on a business or a profession : which in fact requires a license in the first place. Without such a pre condition having been fulfilled the mere levy of license fee on the petitioners is ultra vires and without lawful authority.
3. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed. The notification to the extent of the petitioners is held to be void and is struck down. SA/Q-10/L Petitions allowed.