FARIDA KHAN vs THE CHAIRMAN, KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KARACHI
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which challenged the assessment of municipal taxes on a residential building owned by the petitioner. The petitioner had leased the property to a tenant under an agreement stipulating that all municipal taxes would be paid by the lessee. Following an assessment, the petitioner objected only to the quantum of the tax, and upon rejection of the objections, the tenant paid the demanded tax. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the assessment procedure. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that because the taxes were payable and actually paid by the lessee, the petitioner was not an 'aggrieved person' under the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that the petitioner lacked locus standi as an aggrieved person, particularly since the procedural objections raised in the writ petition departed from the quantum-only objections raised before the municipal authorities. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.
- Whether a lessor is considered an 'aggrieved person' under writ jurisdiction to challenge a tax assessment when the lessee is contractually bound to pay and has already paid the tax?
- Can a petitioner challenge a tax assessment on procedural grounds in a writ petition if their initial objections before the taxing authority were restricted solely to the quantum of the tax?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-Petitioner is the owner of a residential building situated in Karachi. He leased it out to Siemens (Pakistan) Engineering Company Limited in 1952 on the stipulation that municipal taxes will be paid by the lessee. It appears that in 1960 the building was assessed to tax and demand notices A/ 1 to A/8 were issued to the petitioner who thereupon lodged objections with the Chairman, Karachi Municipality, one the question of quantum alone. The objections were rejected whereupon the tax due was paid by the said tenant of the petitioner to the Municipality.
2. The petitioner then finally ,q moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction on the ground that proper procedure was not adopted in assessing the tax. The petition was dismissed in limine as the admitted position was that under the agreement of lease municipal taxes were payable by the lessees and they had in fact paid the amount claimed in the notices A/1 to A/8. The petitioner was therefore not an aggrieved person within Article 98 of the Constitution.
3. The view adopted by the High Court appears to be unexcep--tionable more so as the objections raised by the petitioner were confined to quantum of tax while in writ petition the levy was challenged on the ground that proper procedure was not adopted by the taxing authorities.
4. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.