2006 PLP 577 (YLR)
ABDUL RAZAK — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD OF CLIFTON and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 577 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RAZAK — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD OF CLIFTON and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 577 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 577 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 577 (YLR) (ABDUL RAZAK — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD OF CLIFTON and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sohail H.K. Rana for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 along with Raham Dil, Asstt. Rev. Supdt.
- We have heard the petitioner/ Advocate in person and Mr. Sohail H.K. Rana, Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner Abdul Razak is aggrieved with the demand notice for recovery of property tax at Rs.74,865 for the period from the year, 1991 to the years, 2004. It is stated in the petition that Flat No.B-4, IInd Floor, on Plot No.G-17/B-III, (Al-Habib Garden) Clifton, Karachi, was purchased by his mother Mst. Shafiat Bano, who has expired and the petitioner is her legal heir. It was purchased on 28th of June, 1990, and thereafter the house tax was not assessed. The main objection of the petitioner is that the house tax cannot be recovered for more than three years for the first time in one go. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner who is appearing in person has contended that while imposing house tax the provisions contained in Chapter-V of the Cantonment Act, 1924, have not been complied with. He has however, no objection to the recovery of house tax at the annual rental value of Rs.51,000 for three years namely, 2002, 2003 and 2004. We have heard the petitioner/ Advocate in person and Mr. Sohail H.K. Rana, Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 and
2. The record has been produced before us and we have found that the compliance of the relevant provisions in Chapter-V of the Cantonment Act, 1924, relating to the imposition of taxation have not been made. A perusal of the file shows that the notice under section 68 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 has not been served on the petitioner, who is the occupier and legal A heir of the owner Mst. Shafiat Bano. Since the petitioner is prepared to pay house tax for three years as narrated above, therefore, the petition is disposed of in the following terms:-- "(1) That the Cantonment Board, Clifton shall issue a demand notice to the petitioner for the period of the three years i.e. 2002, 2003 and 2004 within 15 days from today and the petitioner shall pay the same. (2) So far, the contention that the house tax cannot be recovered for more than three years, we have not been shown any provision in this behalf and consequently, this contention is not accepted. (3) For the earlier years the Cantonment Board, Clifton shall be at liberty to initiate the proceedings strictly in accordance with law as contained in Chapter-V of the Cantonment Act, 1924. Likewise, if the assessment is C revised it shall be done strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter-V of the Cantonment Act, 1924. Without complying with the provisions of Chapter-V of the Cantonment Act, 1924, the Cantonment Board, Clifton shall not recovery any house tax from the petitioner C for the period prior to the year, 2002." S.A.K./A-11/K Order accordingly.