P L D (Rev (PLP)

AKHTAR HUSSAIN, F. C. R.‑These are four revision petitions, one (No. 1401) by the Punjab Province, and three (Nos. 1542, 1555 and 1556) by Nawab Muzaffar Ali Khan Qizilbash, against that part of the order of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, dated the 3rd April 1953, by which he upheld the finding of the Collector, Lahore as given in his order dated the 28th June 1952, that agricultural income‑tax could not be levied in respect of land held in Jagir by the Nawab for Rabi 1948 and Kharif 1948, but that it was leviable for subsequent years in question, viz., 1949‑50, 1950‑51 and 1951‑

52. The facts are that originally, for determining the agri cultural income‑tax to be paid by Nawab Muzaffar Ali Khan Qizilbash, the Collector, Lahore, had taken into account the assessed land revenue of village Rakh Khamba (Ali Raza Abad). The Nawab represented that this estate was held in Jagir by him, and as its land revenue has been redeemed Inqita‑i‑malguzari) it should not have been included in the total land revenue paid or payable by him. It was contended before the Collector that under section 2 (2) of the West Punjab Agricultural Income‑tax Act 1948, XV of 1948, the Nawab was only liable to be assessed on the basis of land revenue paid during the financial year 1947‑

48. As no land revenue was actually paid in respect of this land during the financial year 1947‑48, the Collector accepted this contention and decided that the Nawab was not liable to the assessment of the tax for Rabi 1948 and Kharif 1948. As regards subsequent years, the West Punjab Act XIII of 1949 introduced in amendment in section 2 (2) by which the tax was to be assessed on the basis of land revenue which was payable by an owner of agricultural land. This was repeated in Act VII of 1950 and Act XVI of 1951. The Collector held that land revenue was assessed on the Jagir land and was payable though it was not actually realised. He accordingly decided that for the year 1949 and the A succeeding years the agricultural income‑tax on the Jagir land should be levied on the basis of the land revenue assessed. The Commissioner agreed with these findings of the Collector. The estate of Rakh Khamba (Ali Raza Abad) is owned by Nawab Muzaffar Ali Khan Qizilbash. The deed of grant drawn up on 7th March 1868 conferred on Nawab Nawazish Ali Khan son of Nawab Ali Raza Khan (predecessor‑in interest of Nawab Muzaffar Ali Khan Qizilbash) and his successors appointed in accordance with the terms of the deed, "the estate of 2,753 acres, more or less, in Rakh Khamba, revenue free" in full proprietary rights subject to the limi tations and conditions contained in the deed. In the record of rights of 1892 and all the subsequent settlements and revenue records the entry under the column of 'land revenue' against this state, has been shown to be :‑ "Inqita‑i‑Malguzari". which appears to be the translation of the words `land revenue redeemed'. It has been argued by the learned counsel for Nawab Muzaffar Ali Khan Qizilbash that although an assessment of the land in question may have been made under section 48 (3) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, no land revenue has ever been levied on this land and the question of its being paid or having become payable does not arise. Whatever may have been the intention of the legislature, according to established rules of interpretation a taxing statute has to be construed strictly and 'paid' or `payable' cannot be stretched to mean "assessed" or "assessable". On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Punjab Province has stressed the point that the agricultural income tax on income, and that land revenue is only a basis on which the tax has to be calculated. The fact; whether land revenue is actually levied or not, should not affect the basis of assessment. He has also pointed out that in all the enactments in question land revenue has been defined to mean `revenue assessed on any land under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and where any land is not so assessed the land revenue assessed on similar land in the same estate or assessment circle', It is, therefore, argued that if land revenue includes a sum that is not even actually assessed, the words `paid' or 'payable' should be given a meaning which must fit in with this context. So far as Act of 1948 is concerned, the words used in section 2 (2) are that the tax shall be assessed on the basis of land revenue paid during a particular period. As no land revenue was paid in respect of the Jagir land during this particular period in any form it must be held that the order of the Collector and that of the Commissioner was justified and no interference in revision is necessary. This defect in the Act of 1948 was rectified in the Act of 1949 and subsequent Acts by the substitution of the word `payable' for `paid'. The Nawab's liability for payment of taxes is clearly recorded in condition No. V of the deed of grant of 1868 referred to elsewhere. It runs as follows :‑ "The grantee will be liable for all cesses imposed upon landlords generally, and to the Acts and Regulations to which lands paying revenue are liable for the purpose of calculating any cess levied by percentage on revenue‑‑the Annual Revenue of this estate shall be reckoned at Two Thousands Four Hundred Rupees, Government, however, reserves to itself the right to prescribe, by enactment, such modified rules on this point as may hereinafter appear expedient." The word 'cess' is not used here in the narrow meaning given to 'village‑cess' or `rates and cesses' in the Land Revenue Act, but means a tax. The word 'payable' in the Acts of 1949, 1950 and 1951, has particular reference to the period in respect of which the land revenue has to be taken as a basis and its meaning ' has to be construed accordingly. The explanation to section 2 (3)) of the Act of 1951 throws considerable light on how the meaning of the word `payable' is to be construed. It reads :‑ "Land revenue which though assessed has been remitted, or the payment of which has been suspended shall, during the period of such remission or suspension, not be treated as payable". This means that if the explanation had not been there, even land revenue suspended or remitted on account of failure of crops or other calamities would be considered as 'payable'. In these circumstances, the Collector Lahore's finding, as confirmed by the Commissioner, that Nawab Muzaffar Ali Khan Qizilbash is liable to be assessed to agricultural income tax for the years 1949, 1950 and 1951 on the basis of land revenue assessed, must be upheld. The result is that all the four revision petitions are rejected. Parties to be informed. H. A. MAJID, F. C.R & C‑--I agree. A. H. Petitions rejected