1989 PLP 1982 (MLD)

(3) On the date or dates fixed for the hearing of objections and suggestions, the Committee shall hear the same in public and shall afford all possible facilities to the persons making them to present their case. (4) The Committee shall as early as possible after close of the hearing of the objections and suggestions, draw up and furnish detailed report to the council. (5) the report to the Council under sub-rule (4) shall specify-- (a) the salient feature of the taxation proposal; (b) the number and nature of objections and suggestions received within the specified period; (c) the manner in which the objections and suggestions were heard (d) the findings of the committees in respect of each objection and suggestion heard by it; (e) the recommendations of the sub-committee with regard to the taxation proposal indicating whether the recommendations are, as nearly as possible in accordance with the model tax schedule, if any framed by Government under section 6, and (f) financial implications involved in such recommendations. 6.--(1) The Mayor or Chairman, as the case may be, shall present the report to the special meeting of the council, convened for consideration of the taxation proposal. (2) The council shall, consider the report and for the reasons incorporated in its resolution:- (a) approve it with or without modification; or (b) drop the taxation proposal; (e) if the council approves the taxation proposal, with or without, modifications, it shall be submitted to Government alongwith a copy of each the report of the committee and the resolution approving it.

7. Where Government has sanctioned the taxation proposal the order of Government shall be notified in the official Gazette and such order shall come into force ,on and from such date as may be specified in the notification." It is quite clear after reading the above rules that every taxation proposal prepared under Rule 3 of the Rules by a council shall be published alongwith, notice in daily newspaper for inviting objections and suggestions thereon within fifteen days of publication of the taxation proposal. The details to be specified with regard to the proposal in the aforsaid notice are also given in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 (ibid). The grievance of the petitioners jointly in the above petitions is that the respondent No.2 did not publish any taxation proposal before levy of these taxes. The notice issued by the Chairman Town Committee, Radhan Station under Rule 4 of the Rules is filed in all these three cases which were published in Daily `Morning News' Karachi dated 23-4-1984 and Daily `Jhang' dated 24-4 1984. For the sake of convenience we will reproduce here the text of notification published in Daily `Morning News' dated 2.3-4-1984 as both the notifications are in same terms. It reads as under:- "(1) READ SECTION NUMBER 40, SIND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, 1979. It is circulated the Circular, within the premises of Town Committee, Radhan Station for the public that Town Committee, Radhan Station intends to amend the rules and regulations, regarding Octroi tax, new taxes 'and fees etc., due to betterment of financial matters of Town Committee, Radhan Station. Particulars are available, at Town Committee Office, Radhan Station and can be seen on any working day time of office. For that objections and opinions are wanted. Taxation Programme. (a) Last date of objections and opinions is. 8-5-1984 (b) Last date of objections and opinions hearing by Sub-Committee is 9-5-1984 (c) After objections and opinions hearing the last date of report of sub Committee will be. 10-5-1984 (d) After consideration of Sub-Committee report Special Meeting will be called on 12-5-1984 (e) Final report date regarding taxation proposals to Government of Sind is. 14-5-1984. Sd/- Chairman, Town Committee, Radhan Station." It is quite clear from the contents of the above- notice issued by the Town Committee that it did not contain detail of the taxation proposal prepared under Rule 3 of the Rules by the Tow Committee. It cannot be disputed that where statue confers power on an Authority to impose taxes in a prescribed manner, the Authority must follow the procedure prescribed before it could validly impose such taxes. In a case reported as Burshane (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board of Korangi Creek, Karachi and 3 others PLD 1983 Kar. 517 a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us was a member) considered the imposition of a similar tax by the Cantonment Board under section 60 of Cantonments Act and held that where the tax was recovered without following the procedure prescribed under section 255 of the Cantonments Act, it was not valid. "The provisions contained in Section 255 of Cantonments Act, are comparable in many respects with the language and modalities prescribed' tinder rules 4 to 7 of the Rules. The following observations of Supreme Court in the case of Sukkur Municipal Committee v. Muzaffaruddin and another PLD 1967 SC 299 was also quoted and followed in the case of Burshane (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Cantonment Board which equally apply in the present case:- "The main object of this section appears to be that the rate-payers must be given adequate notice with sufficient detail in order to enable them to object to the proposed tax or duty. This cannot, it is true, be effectively done unless the classes of persons or properties proposed to be taxed and the rates at which the tax is proposed to be levied are also known. But it does not require simultaneously publication of both the rules as well as the schedule, provided both are published and the rate-payers are given sufficient opportunity of objecting to them. To make the tax effective, however, both must be published and until bath are published the tax cannot be enforced. Indeed, the tax can come into force only from the date specified under section 77 after both the rules and the schedule has been approved by the Provincial Government under section 76." Considered in the light of above-quoted discussions, we are in no doubt that the imposition of import tax by the Town Committee Radhan Station, was violative of rules prescribed under the Ordinance, 1979 in this behalf. The next grievance of the petitioners in these cases is that the objections submitted by them were to be heard by the Town Committee on 9-5-1984 but on the aforesaid date no hearing took place on the appointed time as no one was present in office of Town Committee. This allegation of the petitioners, though denied by the Town Committee in its counter-affidavit, but it is pertinent to note that no document has been filed in proof of the fact that the objections filed by the petitions were actually considered by the Town Committee before forwarding its taxation proposals to the Government of Sind. In this connection rule 5 of the rules may be referred here which requires that all objections filed against the taxation proposals published under Rule 4 shall be entered in a Register maintained by the Committee. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 ibid further provides that after hearing of the objections is concluded the Committee shall as early as possible draw up and furnish detailed report to the Council which will specify the salient features of the taxation proposal, number and nature of objections and suggestions received within the specified period, the manner in which the objections and suggestions were heard, the findings of the committee in respect of each objection and suggestion heard by it; the recommendations of the sub-committee with regard to the taxation proposal indicating whether the recommendations are, as nearly as possible, in accordance with the model tax schedule, if any framed by Government under section 6, and finally the financial implications involved in such recommendations. Neither of the respondents who are contesting these petitions were able to place before us the above report of the Committee submitted to the Government under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 ibid so as to enable us to ascertain whether the objections were really considered as contemplated above. As the procedure prescribed for imposition of taxes in the Ordinance was not followed, recovery of import tax by the Town Committee from the petitioners by virtue of notification dated 27-6-1984 was not valid. We accordingly declare that the imposition and recovery of taxes by the respondent No. 2 from the petitioners under the impugned notification were without lawful authority. We will however make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.