1989 PLP 948 (MLD)
HATIM ALI BHATTI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 948 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Abdul Rasool Agha JJ |
| Parties | HATIM ALI BHATTI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 948 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 948 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Abdul Rasool Agha JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 948 (MLD) (HATIM ALI BHATTI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ibrahim Bajwa for Petitioner.
- Abdul Rahim Kazi Additional A. G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Assessment and demand of property tax‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction exercise of‑‑Availaibility of adequate remedy‑‑Effect‑‑Matter regarding assessment and demand of property tax, held, could not be agitated in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court without first availing remedy of appeal or revision provided under Act.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.--‑By this petition the petitioner has impugned the demand in respect of the property tax amounting to Rs.62.093. The comments were asked for which were filed. After that the learned Advocate‑General was directed to file the break up of the due amount which he has filed today, according to which now the balance amount payable by the petitioner is Rs.37,
672. It seems that originally the property in question was assessed as godown on 30‑6‑1968 and GARY was assessed at Rs.2400. It appears that thereafter the petitioner constructed 17 shops. There was re‑assessment with effect from 1‑7‑1977 at Rs.24000 GARV. After that petitioner added another 11 shops on the ground floor and 10 flats on the first floor. Accordingly there was fresh assessment at the rate of Rs.64270 GARY. Again the petitioner added five flats on the second floor. Again there was re‑assessment with effect from 1‑7‑1986 at the rate of Rs.78,
672. The petitioner had come in writ after the receipt of the above demand notice. In our view, appropriate remedy for the petitioner is either to file an appeal under section 10 or a Revision wherein he can agitate the question of facts A as to the actual area added. In this petition, we cannot take the above disputed question of fact. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./‑H‑112/K Petition dismissed.