1990 PLP (2) (SCMR)

Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l. M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General and S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 11th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the acceptance by the High Court, of a writ petition which had arisen out of a Taxation matter. As stated in the impugned judgment, consequent upon the direction given by the Provincial Government the District Council concerned levied export tax within its limits. This levy was challenged before the Commissioner who set aside the imposition and remanded the case back to the District Council for further consideration. This order of the Commissioner was challenged before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction on the main ground that "the Commissioner could not ask the District Council to disregard the direction given by the Government". The learned Judge in the High Court dealt with the argument and allowed the writ petition as follows:‑ "The Secretary in the Provincial Local Government and the Commissioner have both appeared before me today. The position taken by the Commissioner is that he was under the impression that there was no direction by the Government to the District Council for the levy of the export tax. That this impression of the Commissioner was erroneous is clear from the statement made before me by the Secretary. He states that the Government had given a direction to the District Council to impose the export tax. In view of this statement the learned Advocate General has conceded that the Commissioner could not suspend the levy of the tax or ask the District Council to reconsider the question of the levy of the said tax. "

4. On behalf of the respondent No.3 who was one of the appellants before the Commissioner it is averred that the Government had not issued any mandatory order to the District Council to levy export tax. Considering the unequivocal statement to the contrary made by the Secretary it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel." Learned counsel contended; firstly, that the petitioner and their counsel were not afforded enough opportunity of hearing by the High Court. This plea has been taken in the grounds of this petition in an elaborate manner. Reading of grounds and the observations by the High Court with regard to the participation of petitioner's counsel in the arguments before it has satisfied us that the petitioner's side has not been prejudiced in so far as the real question in issue is concerned. The learned counsel has argued that the assertion made before the High Court regarding the "direction by the Government" which was then refuted from the petitioner's side; was wrong yet we are satisfied that the Secretary to the Government in the Department of Provincial Local Department had not indulged in falsehood when asserting before the High Court that "The Government had given direction to the District Council to impose the export tax". That being so, the main consideration which weighed with the High Court when allowing the writ petition is unexceptionable and this petition merits to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, after having examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on the combined reading of Sections 137 and 138 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, we are satisfied that they do not advance the petitioner's case. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.A.K./P‑114/S Petition dismissed.