1990 PLP 739 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 26th June, 1989. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑The petitioner has challenged in the above petition the Gross Annual Rental Value (GARY) of the property fixed at Rs.22,200 by respondent No.2 on 30th June, 1982 and confirmed in revision by respondent No.l by order dated 20‑11‑1984. It is an admitted position in the case that the GARY of the property was fixed at Rs.2700 in the final valuation List prepared in 1976 under the provision of Immovable Property Tax Act 1958, hereinafter to be called as `the Act' only, which came into effect from Ist July, 1976. It is also an admitted position that no fresh valuation list was prepared after expiry of 5 years period from 1‑7‑1976 and the old valuation list was adopted for a further period of 5 years commencing from 1‑7‑1981. It appears that after publication of final valuation list the petitioner had made some changes/alterations in the building with the result the GARY of the property was enhanced under Section 9 of the Act to Rs.22,

200. From the certified copy of the extract from P.T.I. Register filed by the petitioner alongwith petition. It appears that no objections were filed by the petitioner against the proposed revision of the GARY of the property under section 9 of the Act and accordingly it was confirmed vide Order of respondent No.2 dated 30‑6 1982. However, petitioner filed a Revision Application against the enhancement of GARV of the property from Rs.2700 to Rs.22,200 before respondent No.1 and he urged the following grounds in the memo of his revision:‑ "

6. That the present GARV of Rs.22,200 assessed and fixed on 30‑6‑1982 was made arbitrarily and beyond all proportion keeping its past valuation and locality.

7. The assessing authority should have refixed the GARV of 2 shops only measuring 6 x 12 each RCC converted from 2, residential rooms (RCC & ACC) and assessed at Rs.24 GARY in 1968. But it appears from the huge amount of GARY Rs.22,

200. The entire property unit has been revised by the Assessing Authority J.I. Divn. for which he is not at all empowered under section 9 of the Act." Respondent No.l, however found that the petitioner had converted the entire ground floor of the building into commercial use and petitioner had failed to specify the particular portion which according to him was converted in the year 1981 from residential to commercial use, accordingly, respondent No.l dismissed the revision application by order dated 20‑11‑1984. The petitioner has challenged the above orders. Mr. G.M. Saleem, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions before us in support of the petition. It is, firstly, contended by the learned counsel that no notice as required under section 9 was served on the petitioner before revising the assessment of the property and as such the order enhancing the assessment from Rs.2700 to Rs.22,200 under section 9 of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction. The second contention of the learned counsel is, that the order enhancing the GARY of the property was passed by respondent No.2 on 30‑6‑1982 and as such it could not take effect retrospectively i.e. from 1‑7 1981. None of the above contentions raised by the learned counsel has any substance. According to Annex. `A' which is certified copy of extract form PT.1 Register, the petitioner failed to file objections against the proposed assessment of Rs.22,

200. The learned counsel for the petitioner has however, contended, that no notice as required under the proviso to section 9 of the Act was served on the petitioner before enhancing the assessment from Rs.2700 to Rs.22,

200. The petitioner. had admittedly filed a revision application against the enhancement of GARV before Respondent No.l. The petitioner, nowhere in the above revision application alleged that the petitioner was not served with any notice as required under the proviso to section 9 of the Act. No doubt in the present petition, the petitioner has alleged that notice under section 9 of the Act was not served but this assertion is clearly an after thought. The respondents in their counter affidavit had also denied the assertion of petitioner that he was not served with the notice under section 9 of the Act and have specifically stated that PT‑13 dated 19‑5‑1982 was issued to petitioner but he failed to file any objection. In these circumstances the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not served with notice under section 9 of the Act cannot be accepted. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the GARY of Rs.22,200 has been given effect to retrospectively i.e. from 1‑7 1981, whereas the order of assessment under section 9 was passed on 30th June, 1982. It is not disputed before us that the final valuation list prepared under section 11 of the Act in June, 1976 came into effect from Ist July, 1976 and after expiry of 5 years it was adopted for the next five years commencing from 1‑7 1981. The order under Section 9 was passed on 30th June, 1982 as is evident from Annexure `A' to the petition. However, the change in the valuation list has been given effect from 1‑7‑1981 i.e. the date on which the valuation list came into effect. In support of the contention that the assessment made under Section 9 could not take effect retrospectively learned counsel has relied on the case of Lipton Pakistan Ltd. v. Govt. of Sind. PLD 1977 Kar.

714. The relevant observations of the Court in this regard appear in paragraph 7 at pages 718‑719 of the report as follows:‑‑ "

7. It was also contended by Mr. Saleem Akhtar that G.A.R.V. cannot be amended with retrospective effect. The learned Advocate‑General, on the other hand, pointed out that according to the scheme of the said Act, first a draft valuation list is to be prepared and published, in respect of which objections are invited and heard. Even after the valuation list is finalized, the assessing Authority has been empowered to make amendments in the valuation list in order to bring the list in accord with existing circumstances. Furthermore, the entries in the valuation list are subject to appeal and revision under section 10 of the said Act. Obviously, if any entries in the valuation list are modified in accordance with the provisions of section 9 or 10 of the said Act, such modifications or amendments would ordinarily take retrospective effect from the date when the valuation list came into force, except in those cases where the amendments or modifications are the result of subsequent events, such as construction of new buildings after the completion of the valuation list, destruction of damage to or alteration of any building since the last valuation, proprietary changes in the ownership or use of any building, such as when building is self‑occupied or is used for a school or a charitable trust, etc. Since the tax is to be collected on the basis of the valuation list, if an entry in the valuation list is modified, then the tax would ordinarily be leviable for the whole of the assessment period in accordance with the new entry in the valuation list, except of course in special cases, some of which have been mentioned by us above." The ratio in the above cited case is clearly against the contention of the petitioner. The Court clearly observed in the above paragraph that amendment R made in the valuation list under Section 9 of the Act generally takes effect retrospectively i.e. from the date when the valuation list, prepared under Section 7 of the Act, came into effect. However, in cases where subsequent changes/ alterations or addition in the property have taken place after coming into force of the valuation list the revision in the GA.R.V. is to take effect from the date of such changes/alterations. In the case before us the petitioner in his memo of revision filed against the enhancement of GARV of the property to Rs.22,200 nowhere disclosed the date on which the premises on the ground floor of the building were converted into commercial from residential. Even in the memo. of petition filed in this Court the petitioner has failed to disclose the specific date on which the conversion of the premises had taken place. In these circumstances, no exception could be taken to the order of respondent No.2, giving effect to the amendment in the valuation list from the date of enforcement of the valuation of the list, namely 1‑7‑1981. The learned counsel also attempted to argue that the enhancement of GARY from Rs.2700 to .Rs.22,200 is arbitrary and disproportionate to the actual rent received by the petitioner. In this connection we may state that in the counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of respondent in paragraph 6 it is asserted that the premises on the ground floor which was previously used by the petitioner was converted into Hotel and was given on rent of Rs.1,000 per month while the residential rooms which were converted into commercial premises were let out at Rs.450 and Rs.350 per month each. No doubt in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner he has claimed that hotel was rented out at Rs.450 while the other two shops were rented out at Rs.300 C each, but no document in support of above assertion has been filed. It is significant that in the revision application which the petitioner filed against the order of Assessing Authority enhancing the assessment from Rs.2700 to Rs.22,200 he failed to dislcose the rent received by him in respect of the Hotel and other two shops. 1n these circumstances, these disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by us in exercise of our Constitutional jurisdiction. There is no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./M‑909/K Petition dismissed.