P L D 2006 Karachi 1 (PLP)
CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. through General Manager — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Karachi 1 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. through General Manager — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XXVII of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Karachi 1 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XXVII of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Karachi 1 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Karachi 1 (PLP) (CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. through General Manager — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shirazi for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Ahmed for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 195 & 196(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Advertisement tax on moving publicity vehicle Petitioner, who was aggrieved by the order of Provincial Government claiming advertisement tax of moving publicity vehicle leviable under Advertisement and Signage Byelaws, 2003 framed by City District Government had contended that vehicles were only displaying the name of product manufactured by petitioner and their trade, name and material did not amount to advertisement and that vehicles being registered in Azad Kashmir, no tax was payable
Contention that vehicles being registered in Azad Kashmir, no tax was payable, was untenable as nothing was in the Byelaws stipulating that levy was only recoverable from vehicles registered within the territorial limits of City District Government
First contention of petitioner involved determination of a pure question of fact
Remedy of statutory appeal being available, Constitutional petition could not be entertained on that score
Petitioner had urged that no statutory rules pertaining to appeal had been framed under S.195 of Sindh' Local Government Ordinance, 2001
Contention was repelled because under S.196(2) of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001 in absence of statutory rules, rules operative under repealed Sindh Local Government Ordinance, would continue to remain in force.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order of the respondent No.1 claiming, advertisement tax of moving publicity vehicle leviable under the Advertisement and Signage Byelaws 2003 framed by the respondent No.2. Basically it is contended that the vehicles were only displaying the name of the product manufactured by the petitioner and their trade name and the material did not amount to advertisement. It is further urged that the vehicles were registered in Azad Kashmir and therefore, no tax is payable.
2. The second contention is ex facie untenable as there is nothing in the Byelaws stipulating that the levy is only recoverable from vehicles registered within the territorial limits of the respondent No.2. The first contention requires determination of a pure question of fact. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Manzoor Ahmed learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that remedy of statutory appeal is available and this petition could A not be entertained on this score. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to urge that no statutory rules pertaining to appeal have been framed under section 195 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance. However, Mr. Mazoor Ahmed argued that under section 196(2) in the absence of statutory rules, rules operative under the repealed Sindh Local Government Ordinance would continue to remain in force. Indeed reading of section 196(2) clearly affirms this position.
3. For the foregoing reasons we would dismiss this petition in limine leaving the petitioner to file the statutory appeal if permissible under the law. H.B.T./C-41/K Petition dismissed.