2005 PLP 285(2) (YLR)

Sh. Abdul Aziz for Petitioner. Suleman Habibullah, A.A.-G. for Respondent No.

1. Abdul Karim Khan for Respondent No.2. Mansoor Ahmed for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 8th May, 2003. SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.-- Through this petition, the petitioner has called in question demand notices from the respondent No.2, claiming conservancy charges at the rate of 50% of the water rate payable by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, who are corporate entity mainly controlled by the Federal Government, owned a Cement Factory located on Mangopir Road which is outside the municipal limit of the respondent No.3. While the petitioner received water supply in bulk from the respondent No.2 for which they are making payment at the prescribed rate, they have their own exclusive arrangement for maintenance and operation of sewerage work in their factory area, for collecting, pumping and disposing of waste and for that purpose have their own septic tanks and soak pits etc. It has also claimed that the petitioner have their own arrangement for disposal and dumping of solid waste, rubbish, scavenging etc. within their own land and no connection for removal of sewerage to any drain maintained by the respondent No.2. It is, therefore, alleged that since no conservancy services are being provided by the respondent No.2, no payment could be demanded.

2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 it has not been expressly claimed that any conservancy services are being provided by the aforesaid respondent No.2. Reliance however, has been placed on certain notifications of the respondent No.3 and it is contended that the respondent No.2 is entitled to collect conversancy charges or tax at the rate of 50% of the water charges in respect of industrial properties.

3. The only question required to be determined is whether the amount claimed by the respondent No.2 by way of conservancy charges' is in the nature of local tax payable irrespective of rendition of service or whether it can only be classified as a fee required to be paid only for services actually rendered. The distinction between a tax and a fee has been clearly drawn in several pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Court including Muhammad Ismail v. Chief Cotton Inspector PLD 1966 SC 388, Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Rahimullah 1992 SCMR 750 and Collector of Customs v. Rahimullah 1999 SCMR 1402. The consistent view of the Honourable Supreme Court appears to be that while both tax and a fee are compulsory to levy taxes for general revenue purposes appears to be available to the respondent No.2. The above question has already been considered by us in C.P.No.730 of 1991, 2407 of 1992 and 2679 of 1992 heard on 8-5-2003 and we held that the conservancy tax levied by the respondent No.2 is only in the nature of fee for services provided, we have not been persuaded to reconsider our conclusion. We may add that through the notification dated 25-8-1992, under which conservancy charges are claimed, itself clarifies that they would be payable in respect of industrial properties located outside K.M.C. limits, connected with K.W. & S.B's sewerage system. Since it is neither claimed that the petitioner's property falls within such limits nor any link with respondent's sewerage system is shown, we were constrained to allow this petition vide order dated 8-5-2003 and these are reasons for the said short order. H. B. T./J-11/K Petition allowed.