1985 PLP 1930 (CLC)

This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No. 4811 of 1984 and W.P. No. 4830 of 1984 as common question of law and facts are involved.

2. Union Council No.16, Chak No.50/MB, Tehsil and District Khushab proposed a tax on import of goods vide resolution passed on 25-12-1983. A notification in this regard was issued on 28-3-1984. Habib Jute Mills, one of the respondents in Writ Petition No. 4811 and Salley Textile Mills, one of the respondents in W.P. No. 4830 of 1984 went in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner against the imposition of tax. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Khushab, Sub-Division Jauharabad vide his order dated 14-10-1983 has doubted the correctness of the record of the Union Council. He set aside the imposition of tax and has directed the Union Council to proceed, afresh in the matter. The Union Council has challenged the orders of the appellate authority in two Separate constitutional petitions.

3. The authority of the Union Council to imposing an import tax is not in question but the Local Council has to act in accordance with the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980 for the purpose of imposition of a tax. Under these rules preliminary proposals are to be published, objections invited and considered and then finally passed by a majority vote in a special meeting of the council. The record shows that the proposals were published on 21-11-1983 and a copy of the proposals was specifically delivered to Habib Jute Mills and Salley Textile Mills Ltd. The taxation sub-committee met on 20-12-1983. It received an objection in writing only from Salley Textile Mills and from none else. This objection was considered and rejected. The special meeting of the Union Council took place on 25-12-1983 and the taxation proposals were finally approved by it. They were subsequently notified on 28-3-1984.

4. All the necessary formalities provided in the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980, have been fulfilled. As to the correctness of the record the proceedings of the sub-committee of 20-12-1983 bear the signatures of all the members of the committee. These proceedings have been attested by the Chairman. Similarly the proceedings of the special meeting of the Union Council bear the signatures of all the 15 members who voted for the resolution. The Assistant Commissioner was, however, persuaded to doubt the correctness of the proceedings on the basis of an affidavit submitted to him by Haji Amanat Ali, the convener of the taxation sub-committee. According to this affidavit, since the defendent and Ch. Karam Din another member of the committee, alone were available, no meeting took place. But this affidavit is contrary to the record as the proceedings of the sub-committee bear the signature of Haji Amanat Ali himself. The Assistant Commissioner is of the view that this signature only shows attendance of Haji Amanat All, but this is all that is required to show that a meeting took place. In fact no law requires that the members of a committee should all sign the proceedings of the committee. The proceedings are ordinarily maintained by the Secretary and are to be attested by the person presiding. In this case the proceedings bear not only the attestation of the Chairman but also all the members who attended the meeting of the sub-committee. It is also worthy of notice that the remaining four members of the sub-committee have sworn a counter-affidavit to the one submitted by Haji Amanat Ali. In my opinion the Assistant Commissioner has been hasty in rejecting the entire record, the correctness of which is supported by a counter-affidavit, merely on a solitary affidavit of one of the members which is contradicted by his own signature on the record of proceedings.

5. The record shows one defect in the proceedings. This is regarding the constitution of the taxation sub-committee. Under rule 5(2), a sub-committee has to consist of the Chairman and such other members as may be specified. The sub-committee constituted in the present case consisted of five persons but did not include the Chairman. But no grievance could be made out of this as no prejudice can be claimed on account of the absence of the Chairman from the membership of the Committee. The only person aggrieved of the constitution of the committee could be the Chairman. He has not made any grievance of it which is evident from the fact that he has endorsed the recommendations of the committee although he had a right to disagree with them under rule 6 of the rules of 1980.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the finalisation of the taxation proposals, is in violation of rule 7, as the draft of the taxation notification, was not considered, clause by clause. This is, however, immaterial to the vires of the notification as it is merely an irregularity and is not fatal to the proceedings. In view of the above considerations in my opinion orders of the Assistant Commissioner suffer from improper exercise of authority. This call for interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The two writ petitions are, therefore, allowed and the order dated 14-10-1984 are declared to be of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs. A.A Petitions allowed.