1968 PLP 445 (SCMR)
BEGUM SAMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 PLP 445 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | BEGUM SAMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 445 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 445 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 445 (SCMR) (BEGUM SAMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. A. Samad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Sh. Haider, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. M. Hanif, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi dated the 5th September 1967, in Petition No. 340 of 1967). West Pakistan Urbari Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958), S. 5-Ascertainment of annual value of property-Plot leased out for purpose of petrol pump-Necessary structure set up on land does not render such plot to fall in category of "building with its appurtenances."
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.
By this petition for special leave to appeal, the petitioners seek to challenge the mode of assessment of property unit G. R. E. Nos. 569 and 569-A, by the Excise and Taxation Department. Begum Samad Khan (Petitioner No. 1) has leased out the said property measuring 949 sq. yards to Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of Pakistan Limited (Petitioner No. 2) at a rental of Rs. 2,500 per month and the said Company has set up necessary structure and a petrol pump thereon for the purpose of using it as a petrol distributing centre. As the land and building were separately owned, the Excise and Taxation Officer assessed the rental value of the land at Rs. 33,600 per annum and that of the structure on the land at Rs. 18,000 per annum. On the petitioners filing an objection, he reduced the assess-meat to Rs, 30,000 and Rs. 12,000, respectively. On appeal, the Director of Excise and Taxation, Karachi, while maintaining the assessment for the land reduced that of the structure to Rs. 2,
800. The petitioners then went up in revision before the Additional Commissioner, Karachi, and he reduced the assessment to Rs. 30,
000. Against his order, they moved a writ in the High Court, but the same was summarily dismissed. They now seek special leave to appeal to this Court. The learned Counsel has contended that section 5 of the West Urban Immovable Property Tax Act contemplates two Nutually exclusive forms of taxable property, viz,, (i) land and (ii) building together with appurtenances, and hence this property could not be treated both as land and building and separately taxed as such. According to him, this property should have been taxed as "building with its appurtenances". We are unable to accept the last contention of the learned Counsel, namely, that this property should have been assessed as "building with its appurtenances". In our opinion, in view of 4 the facts and circumstances the Additional Commissioner was justified on the data before him to assess this property as land as would appear from the concluding part of his order:- "I think the assessment of Tax should be made only on the basis of Rs. 2,500 monthly rental value on which the plot was actually leased out. It would not be justifiable to assess the super-structure separately as the rent of Rs. 2,500 would never be paid if it was not intended for construction of a Petrol Pump. Accordingly, therefore, I would reduce the G. A. R. V. to only Rs. 30,000," The High Court, therefore, rightly declined to interfere with the order of the Additional Commissioner. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.