1995SCMR1168 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 166 & 143‑‑‑Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Intra‑Court Appeal‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Levy of tax on export of goods from the District‑‑‑Person aggrieved or adversely affected was required to file objections on imposition of such tax within specified period‑‑‑Respondents though aggrieved by levy of such tax, yet did not file objections nor availed opportunity of filing appeal but straightaway filed Constitutional petition which was dismissed by High Court‑‑ Respondent's Intra‑Court. Appeal, however, succeeded and he was granted relief against the levy of tax‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's main contention was that respondent neither filed objections nor availed opportunity of filing appeal; Intra‑Court appeal was not competent as envisaged by proviso to S.3, Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 which stipulates that Intra‑Court Appeal would not lie when any proceedings in which law applicable provided for at least one appeal, one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or Authority against original order‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the objections raised. Syed Muhammad Ayub Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th February, 1995. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 5‑6‑1994 of the Lahore High Court whereby I.CA. No.58 of 1978 filed by the respondent was allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside.

2. The District Council, Campbellpur, now Attock, through Notification dated 6‑12‑1976 published in the Gazette on 27‑5‑1977 levied tax on the export of goods from the District. This notification preceded a public notice published in daily `Jang' in which proposal of imposition of the tax was made on the export of the goods. Any person aggrieved or class of persons adversely affected were allowed to file objections within 30 days from the date of the notification but in the operative part thereof the objections were required to be filed up to 15‑11‑1976 and those were to be considered by District Council's Sub‑Committee on 25‑11‑1976.

3. The respondent who was engaged in manufacturing woolen goods at Lawrencepur did not file objections but filed Writ Petition No. 4043 of 1977 in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge on 6‑3‑1978. The respondent feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge preferred Intra‑Court Appeal No. 58 of 1978 which was allowed vide impugned order, referred to above. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned Judges o the Lahore High Court wrongly repelled the objection raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the Intra‑Court Appeal. It was further contended that section 166 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 provides right of appeal to the aggrieved person against the order of the Local Council. Similarly, section 143 of the aforementioned Ordinance provides right to file a , petition against valuation and assessment of taxes. He added that the respondent neither filed objection petition nor availed opportunity of filing appeal before the competent authority; Intra‑Court Appeal was not competent as envisaged by proviso to section 3 of Laws Reforms Ordinance, (XII of 1972) which stipulates that Intra‑Court Appeal would not lie when any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal, one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or Authority against the original order. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above-noted contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A.A./D‑116/SC Leave granted.