P L D 1957 W (PLP)
Malik GHULAM MOHY‑UD‑DIN and others‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Malik GHULAM MOHY‑UD‑DIN and others‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Agricultural Income Tar. Act (XVI of 1951), (a) Punjab Agricultural Income Tax Act (XVI of 1951) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Agricultural Income Tar. Act (XVI of 1951), (a) Punjab Agricultural Income Tax Act (XVI of 1951) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 W (PLP) (Malik GHULAM MOHY‑UD‑DIN and others‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Ali Alvi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
Agricultural Income Tax is assessed every year. The word "year" is not defined in the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1951, the assumption, therefore, is that the word "year" means the calendar year. An assessee dies during the course of a year. The question arises whether the tax levied for that year should be in respect of his holding as a whole. The Act employs the following phraseology :‑ " The tax shall be assessed every year in respect of income from land." " The tax shall be assessed on the basis of the total land revenue which was payable in respect of the preceding year. This phraseology tends to show that the tax is really a tax on the income in the preceding year. On this basis, the assessee's whole holding can be taken into account in the year in which he passes away. Another way of looking at the same matter would be that if an owner continues alive for one day in a particular year, he can be assessed under the Act in that year, and if he is so assessed, his whole holding would be taken into account. For both the above reasons, I consider that the petitioners are not entitled to say that the second instalment of the year 1954, should be charged from them on the basis of their individual holdings inherited from their father on his death on 6th July 1954. 1, therefore, dismiss this petition for revision. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.