2007 PLP 215 (YLR)
HUSSAIN GLOBAL ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. — Petitioner Versus T.M.A., MURREE through Tehsil Municipal Officer — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 215 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J |
| Parties | HUSSAIN GLOBAL ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. — Petitioner Versus T.M.A., MURREE through Tehsil Municipal Officer — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Council (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 215 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Council (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 215 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 215 (YLR) (HUSSAIN GLOBAL ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. — Petitioner Versus T.M.A., MURREE through Tehsil Municipal Officer — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Sh. for Petitioner.
- Abdur Rashid Awan for Respondent.
- 2. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent states that petitioner offered the highest bid of the above said land which was accepted by the competent authority. The bargain was completed during the year 1998, therefore, he is liable to pay the tax under sub-rule 3 of rule 4 of the Punjab Local Council (Tax on Transfer of Immmovable Property) Rules, 1981. Adds that since tax determined and demand created under rule 4(3) ibid is appealable under rule 8, therefore the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative and adequate remedy available under the law.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 4(3) & 8
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner had contended that highest bid offered by him for the purchase of Lodges, was accepted by competent Authority and sale-deed was executed; that he had submitted application for payment of tax, but neither tax had been determined nor application so submitted by petitioner had yet been decided and sale-deed had not been entered in the relevant record of Municipal Committee
Respondent had contended that bargain having been completed during the year 1998, petitioner was liable to pay tax under R.4(3) of Punjab Local Council (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981 and since tax determined and demand under R.4(3) of Punjab Local Council (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981, was applicable under R.8 thereof, constitutional petition was not maintainable as petitioner had alternative and adequate remedy available under the law
Application submitted by petitioner for determination of tax under said Rules if any, would be decided at the first instance
While dilating upon controversy of petitioner's tax, Taxation Officer would also attend the question of applicability of said Rules and prevailing rate of tax at the relevant time of sale
Petitioner, would be at liberty to avail remedy of appeal under R.8 of Punjab Local Council (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981 or any further remedy available to him under law.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner offered the highest bid of Rs.40,200,000 for the purchase of federal lodges in Murree which was accepted by the competent authority. Thereafter, the sale-deed was executed on 17-4-2002. Petitioner submitted application on 17-10-2002 for payment of the tax under Punjab Local Government (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 2001. Neither the tax has been determined nor the application so submitted by the petitioner has yet been decided. Therefore, the sale-deed has not been entered in the relevant record of the respondent committee.
2. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent states that petitioner offered the highest bid of the above said land which was accepted by the competent authority. The bargain was completed during the year 1998, therefore, he is liable to pay the tax under sub-rule 3 of rule 4 of the Punjab Local Council (Tax on Transfer of Immmovable Property) Rules, 1981. Adds that since tax determined and demand created under rule 4(3) ibid is appealable under rule 8, therefore the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative and adequate remedy available under the law.
3. Confronted with this position, learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that yet no order has been passed by the authority, tax cannot be demanded from the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I hold that this writ petition is not maintainable. Application submitted by the petitioner on 17-4-2002 for determination of the tax under the Punjab Local Government (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 2001, if any, shall be decided at the first A instance, while dilating upon the controversy of the petitioner's tax the Taxation Officer shall also attend the question of applicability of the rules and prevailing rate of tax at the relevant time of sale. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal under rule 8 or any further remedy available to him under the law. With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./H-34/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.