R.N.A. INTERNATIONAL through Partner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Defence Naveed Ahmed Khan , Ashraf Ali Butt
ORDER
1. This petition pertains to the challan issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioners in respect of payment of house tax and conservancy charges for the assessment year 2005-2006 recorded by the Assessment Committee which is not in conformity with the order dated, 10-12-2004 passed by learned XIX-Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East who is also serving as Cantonment Magistrate. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have constructed and managed the high-rise building commonly known as Asia Pacific Center situated on plot of land bearing Survey No.250 (now renumbered as Plot No.250/1, NA Class No.118 situated in Deh Okewari, Bolck-19, Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi consisting of ground plus seven floors, upon the completion of the construction some of the floors of the building were parted to the respective purchasers while ground floor, 6th floor and 7th floor are in personal use and possession of the petitioners. It is consistently argued that the respondent No, 2 without any justification, are claiming taxes from the petitioners for the assessment year 2005-2006, challan has been issued in violation of the Cantonments Act, 1924 on the higher side without showing adjustment in the taxes already paid, which were agitated before the competent forum by the petitioners but of no avail.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that the petition, as framed and filed, is not maintainable in law as an alternate remedy was available to the petitioners in terms of section 84 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 which provides for appeal before the Commissioner in case of illegal assessment as complained by the petitioners which has not been adhered to, however, it is contended that the respondent No.2 is willing and prepared to reassess the subject property comprising of ground floor, 6th floor and 7th floor of the building after due notice to the petitioners and upon verification of the fact whether the petitioners are in self-occupation and/or in occupation of the tenants. Learned counsel for petitioners has fairly conceded that the best course, in the circumstances, would be to reassess the disputed property after due notice to the petitioners on the basis of judicial order pronounced by the competent forum as well as the petitioners are prepared to pay the taxes on the basis of tax claimed by the other occupants of the building even on higher side.
3. We have considered the arguments advanced at bar, the petitioners appear to have been discriminated in connection with the assessment held by the competent forum payable by the petitioners, therefore, the respondent No.2 are directed to reassess the disputed property owned by the petitioners after due notice to the assesses on the basis of the payments made by the other occupants of the similar building and/or of the same building on the basis of the taxes claimed from other occupants.
4. In above circumstances, the petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
5. S.A.K./R-4/K Petition disposed of.