2022 PLP 2002 (CLC)

AGHA FAISAL, J.

The petitioners have assailed notices issued under section 68 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 ("Act"), whereby assessment of house tax had been proposed, and demand notices, issued pursuant thereto.

2. Per learned counsel, the petitioners preferred objections to the proposed assessments, per section 68 of the Act, and upon receiving no response also filed applications under section 71(c) of the Act, and therefore any demand during tenancy of such proceedings was unmerited in the very least.

3. Counsel for the cantonment board submitted that the present petitions were not maintainable since the petitioners ought to have assailed the notices / demands in appeal, per section 841 of the Act read with SRO 1293(I)/2008 dated 22.12.2008. Reliance in such regard was placed on Nisar2, Aminullah3 and Fecto4, being judgments of learned Single Benches of the Lahore High Court wherein the exercise of writ jurisdiction was declined since the objections of the petitioners, to proposed assessments, had been rejected by the competent authority. Reliance was also placed on orders of honorable Division benches of this Court, in Ansar5, Shahnawaz6, Syed7 and an order of the honorable Supreme Court in Muhammad8, wherein either time for filing of appeal was extended, consensually, or directions were given to the competent authority to adjudicate the pertinent dues and render orders in accordance with the law. In either instance adverse action was restrained in the interim period

4. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. It is considered expedient to initiate this deliberation by adverting to the pertinent provisions of the applicable law.

5. Sections 689 of the Act envisages revision of an assessment list, to be initiated inter alia by proposing of valuation / assessments by the board. The persons concerned are required to be given notice and they are eligible to file their objections to the proposed valuation / assessment. Once the objections have been disposed of, and the revision of the valuation and assessment has been completed, the assessment list is required to be authenticated by an assessment committee, which is mandated to certify that it has considered all objections and amended the list so far as is required by their decisions on such objections

10. In addition thereto, the board retains the power to amend an assessment list, within the powers conferred thereupon under the Act11.

6. Per petitioners' counsel the objections to the proposed assessment were never determined by the assessment committee, as required per section 68 of the Act. Respondent's learned counsel has articulated no cavil in respect of such assertion and nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate to the contrary either. In view hereof, it is prima facie manifest that the requirements of section 68 of the Act have not been satisfied, prior to issuance / enforcement of demand upon the petitioners.

7. The judgments of the honorable Lahore High Court, mentioned supra, are distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances as they uphold the remedy of statutory appeal, once the objections to the proposed assessments had already been determined by the competent authority. The same is admittedly not the case before us. The orders of this High Court and the august Supreme Court, cited by the respondent's counsel, lend credence to our view that the right of a person to be heard, prior to any assessment being finalised, cannot be abridged.

8. Petitioners' counsel has remained unable to assist us with regard to whether a person aggrieved was entitled to invoke section 71 of the Act, as of right, in place of recourse to an appeal under section 84 of the Act. However, no deliberation on this issue is merited in the present facts and circumstances as the law does not envisage authentication of an assessment unless an assessment committee has considered all objections and rendered its decision in such regard.

9. In view of the reasoning and rationale herein contained, we do hereby dispose of the present petitions in the following terms: i. The impugned demand notices are hereby set aside, inter alia, on account of being premature. ii. The competent authority (assessment committee) is directed to issue notice/s, to the petitioners, of hearing, to determine their objections to the assessments proposed. iii. The petitioners have the right to submit their replies in writing, provided that the written submissions are received by the competent authority on or before the designated time / date upon which the hearing has been scheduled in respect thereof. iv. The petitioners shall remain entitled to rely upon such material, record and / or evidence as may be relevant, inclusive of without limitation the material pleaded before us and / or relied upon in their respective applications per section 71 of the Act. v. The competent authority shall, by way of a reasoned order, issue a determination in accordance with the law with respect to each petitioner. vi. It is expected that the competent authority shall conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within one month hereof, however, until determination of the matter no coercive action, in respect of the proposed assessments impugned before us, may be taken by the respondents against the petitioners. vii. Any person aggrieved by any such determination, in whole or in part, may be entitled to seek such relief before such forum and in such proceedings as may be permissible in law. SA/R-1/Sindh Order accordingly.