NISAR AHMAD SHAIKH Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, B & C DIVISIONS

ORDER

1. SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, J. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that for the purpose of storing of goods, they have taken on lease two plots situate at Timber Pond Area, Keamari, Karachi at the rates of Rs.47 and Rs.31.40 per sq. meter per annum respectively. In February, 1987 petitioners were served with notice by Excise and Taxation Deptt. under the provisions of. Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 and rules framed thereunder in connection with assessment of the said plots and additional constructed area. Petitioners were given proper hearing, where objections were raised challenging the assessment and ultimately order was passed by the Excise and Taxation Deptt. on 12‑10‑1987 which is impugned in this petition.

2. Main grievance of the petitioners is that the properties in question have been mentioned as two separate units. As a matter of fact they are not two units but one unit as such should be assessed as one unit. In support reliance is placed on definition of land mentioned in Section 2(d) of Sind Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act). In this provision land is defined as land appurtenant to any building, but does not include independent vacant plot. Other similar provisions relied upon are sections 3(b) and 7 of the said Act which provide for rating areas and making and operation of valuation lists. Attempt was made to argue that in view of provisions mentioned above, assessment in respect of lands appertaining to a building shall be treated as one unit.

3. In the rebuttal of the arguments, stand is taken in the impugned order that as per Section 7‑A valuation lists of the properties shall continue to be in force from the said date and be the basis of levying the tax until the date on which the new lists are enforced in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act. In part 2 of this provision. it is provided that for the purposes of the said valuation lists the new value of building shall be determined in accordance with Section 5 as it stood immediately before 1 st July, 1977. Assertion is made in the impugned order that as long as new valuation lists are not made in accordance with Section 7 of the said Act, annual value of the building shall continue to be determined in accordance with Section 5 of the said Act.

4. Order passed by respondent is impugned in this petition not on the ground that respondent had no jurisdiction to pass such order but on the ground that it is a wrong order and is not passed in accordance with provisions of the said Act. Be that as it may, if the impugned order does not suffer from jurisdictional defect then remedy can be pursued in the forums provided under the scheme of A that particular law. Against the impugned order, there is remedy available under Section 10 of the said Act for filing appeal before the Collector and after that there is another forum for filing a Revision before Director‑General. Petitioners have not given any convincing reason for not filing Appeal and Revision. Same grounds which have been urged in this petition can be urged in the‑forums which are provided under the same Act.

5. For the facts and reasons mentioned above, we find no justification to interfere as such this petition is dismissed in limine.

6. M . Y . H / N‑135 / K Petition dismissed.