2012 PLP 415 (MLD)

FAISAL ARAB, J.

The petitioner is owner of plot bearing No.B-173, Block-12, admeasuring 400 square yards, situated in Scheme No.36, Gulistan-e-Jauhar, Karachi. This Scheme No.36, Gulistan-e-Jauhar was part and parcel of the defunct KDA and subsequently it was transferred to Cantonment Board Faisal in the year 1997. In the year 2004 the petitioner applied for approval of building plan for raising residential house on his above mentioned plot and upon such application, the Cantonment Board, Faisal vide its letter dated 14-6-2004 demanded a sum of Rs.122,592 which included Rs.96,000 as TIP Tax, calculated at the rate of 2% of the costs of land. The demand for this TIP tax has been challenged in this petition.

2. The petitioner appeared in person and stated that he will argue his case himself instead of his counsel. At the very outset he argued that TIP tax is being charged on the basis of S.R.O.(I)/77 (sic), issued by Ministry of Defence, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 61 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. He stated that since S.R.O. was issued in 1977 and the plot of the petitioner included in the Faisal Cantonment area in the year 1997, the previous S.R.O. cannot be made applicable and fresh S.R.O. ought to have been issued after complying all the requirements contained in section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 which calls for invitation of objections for such imposition of tax under section 62 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, but such opportunity was not given and, therefore, the demand for TIP tax was unlawful. He next contended that TIP tax @ 2% of the land value was reasonable for the people who earlier owned properties in the Cantonment area, but not for the people who reside in Gulistan-e-Jauhar and, therefore, such demand is exorbitant too.

3. Insofar as the first argument is concerned, we are of the view that once a tax has been levied within the jurisdiction of a taxing authority, then addition of any area to the jurisdiction of such authority would make all levies of taxes and charges applicable to such additional area. The laws cannot be enacted, afresh to have their effect on the additional/extended area. Once an area has been added then all applicable laws of that authority within whose jurisdiction the area has been added become applicable to the newly added area as well. Thus, the argument that the levy of 2% TIP tax is applicable to the properties which were already part of the cantonment area and not to the other properties that were part of the land added subsequently is, therefore, misconceived. From the building plans placed on record, it is evident that the plot is of 400 square yards, comprising of drawing, dining room, kitchen, store, three bed rooms with attached bath and master bed room. Similar is the position on the first floor as such this cannot be said to be a property of a poor person. No such argument was raised other than the above to question the levy of the tax which is already existing and is being paid by all the property owners since its imposition in 1977. Thus no exception can be given to petitioner's case. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M-201/K Petition dismissed.