1983 PLP 1323 (SCMR)

(a) That notwithstanding the amendment of the definition of the word "owner" in section 2 of the Act by. the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act‑(Amendment) Ordinance (XXVIII of 1963) inserting therein the following definition of the word "owner" :‑ "(e) "Owner" includes a mortgagee with possession, a lessee in per petuity, a trustee having possession of a trust property and a person to whom an evacuee property has been transferred provisionally or permanently under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (Act No. XXVIII of 1958)." a provisional transferee of an evacuee property‑cannot legally be made liable to tax ; and (b) property tax can be levied only once and not repeatedly i. e. it cannot be levied every year. In so far as the first contention is concerned, the main submission in support of this is that as all the evacuee properties, after their acquisition, vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances, under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and that no tax can be charged by a provincial law upon a property of the Central Government, therefore the attempt to levy the tax on such properties by the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 was of no avail. The same contention was raised before the High Court and the learned Judge in the High Court held that the charge of property tax was not being raised during a period when the Central Government held the property for its own use but this was being done later on, after the same stood provisionally transferred to private citizens, who were desirous of its transfer. It was also observed that here a provincial law i. e. the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 for ‑the purposes of levying the property tax was treating a provisional transferee of evacuee property to be an owner, even though he may not be a full owner under the Settlement and Rehabilitation Laws, for purposes of liability to tax. In so doing, it was not shown that the said law had contravened any superior law or in fact any other law. We agree with this approach and endorse it. Hence there is no merit in the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In support of the second contention, namely, that property tax is a tax which can be levied only once and cannot be repeated annually, reliance has been placed on section 3(2) of the Act; the relevant part of it reads, as under :‑ "3.‑(2) There shall be charged, levied and paid a tax on the annual value of buildings and lands in a rating area at the rate of ten per. cent of such annual value." It is submitted that the above provision is similar to the one in the Excise Act, which has been construed in the sense that the levy can be made only once. On a parity of reasoning it is submitted that this provi sion also meant that the tax was to be paid on the annual value of the buildings or lands only once and not repeatedly. It is true that a reading of the above provision simpliciter might lend itself to the above interpretation, but we consider that in order to comp rehend the intention of the Legislature this provision shall have to be read alongwith the other provisions in the Act. On doing so it appears that the tax is to be paid yearly or half‑yearly, as may be prescribed. In this connection, it would be advantageous to refer to section 12 of the Act which reads as under :‑ "

12. Tax when payable.‑The tax shall be payable half‑yearly by such dates as may be prescribed Provided that Government may, by notification, direct that any rating area ‑‑‑ (i) the tax shall be paid yearly ; (ii) the tax for any specified period shall be paid separately." A consideration of the various provisions of the Act clearly shows that the intention of the Legislature was to make property tax on urban pro perties payable yearly or half‑yearly and not only just once. There is, therefore, no force in this petition which is dismissed hereby. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.