2006 PLP 2383 (YLR)
PUNJAB OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION, through Secretary — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2383 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar, J |
| Parties | PUNJAB OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION, through Secretary — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2383 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2383 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2383 (YLR) (PUNJAB OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION, through Secretary — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Rasheed Ahmad for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Enhancement of advertisement tax rates
Petitioners had prayed that acts of authorities of revising/enhancing advertisement tax rates thrice in a period of less than one year, be declared as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction
High Court refused to entertain petition for the reasons that no jurisdictional defect had been brought home, that competency of authorities to impose/charge the levy having not been disputed, no case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction was made out; that mere assertion that advertisement tax rates were raised thrice in a period of one year, was not a good ground for interference in constitutional jurisdiction; that no constitutional guarantee in that regard had been pointed out which could possibly be said to have been violated; that petitioner association or its members were not under any obligation to avail the facility of allowing outdoor advertisement by the Authorities, if they did not find it to be a profitable preposition as they could always refuse to avail the same and that assertion of enhancement of rates with retrospective effect starting from a date earlier than the date of notification, was not established on record
No case for interference, having been made out, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
In this constitutional petition following prayer has been made:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the decisions/acts of respondents Nos.3 and 4 of revising/enhancing advertisement rates/next thrice in a period of less than one year with effect from 1-7-2002 till 15-4-2003 and issuance of notices to members of petitioner's association and collection taxes/fees/rents on the enhanced rates may graciously be declared as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction, consequently the same may be set aside and the respondents may be restrained from charging the advertisement taxes/fees/rents on the basis of enhanced rates. They may be directed to charge the advertisement taxes/rates/fees at the rates promulgated during the year 2001 or at the rates fixed levied with effect from 1-7-2002."
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I will refuse to entertain this petition for the following reasons: First, no jurisdictional defect has been brought home. The competency of the Board to impose/charge the levy having not been disputed, no case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction is made out. Second, mere assertion that advertisement tax rates were raised thrice in a period of one year is not a good ground for interference in constitutional jurisdiction. No constitutional guarantee in that regard has been pointed out which could possibly be said to have been violated. Third, the petitioner/association or its members are not under any obligation to avail the facility of allowing outdoor advertisement by the Board if they do not find it to be a profitable preposition. They can always refuse to avail the same. And, Lastly, the assertion of enhancement of rates with retrospective effect starting from a date earlier to the date of notification is not established on record.
3. No case for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction is made out. Accordingly this petition shall be dismissed in limine. H.B.T./P-11/L Petition dismissed.