R.M. GULISTAN Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, RAWALPINDI DIVISION, RAWALPINDI
Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is the Chief Executive and Managing Partner of M/s. R.M. Gulistan, Engineers and Contractors, Karachi, that he recently started business of poultry at Chakwal under the name and style of Kahout Hatchery and Breeding Farms. (Pvt.) Limited, which is also registered in Karachi, that he had been visiting Chakwal in connection with his business and as such came, here on 7‑3‑1999, that on 7‑3‑1999, while he was driving his vehicle, Respondents Nos.3 and 4 stopped it and demanded receipt of payment of Luxury Tax, that as Luxury Tax is levied in Punjab under section 7 of the Punjab Finance Act, 1997 and is not applicable to vehicles registered in the Province of "Sindh, so he could not provide the requisite receipt that resultantly his vehicle was impounded that he agitated the matter before Respondent No.2 who did not accede to his request as per order dated 9‑3‑1999, that he filed an appeal and matter was remanded to the Respondent No.2 who again dismissed his request vide order, dated 12‑6‑1999, that he again filed an appeal with Respondent No .l who upheld the order, dated 12‑6‑1999 vide his order, dated 3‑8‑1999.
Hence the instant writ petition wherein he has challenged the very imposition of said Tax on the ground that he is not plying the vehicle and as such is not liable to pay said tax.
2. Comments of Respondents Nos. l and 2 have been obtained and placed on record.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that tax on luxury vehicles has been imposed under section 7 of the Punjab Finance Act, 1997, which reads as follows:‑‑
"Tax on Luxury Vehicles. ‑‑‑There shall be levied and collected a one time tax at the following rates on luxury vehicle manufactured abroad and registered in the Punjab after 30th June, 1994 or registered after the said date outside the Punjab and plying in the Punjab:
(a) Mercedes Bens. BMW, Jagnar Rolls Royee cars or cars of such other makes or may be notified by the Government:
(i) with engine capacity upto 2000 c.c.
Rs.2,00,000.00
(ii) with engine capacity exceeding 2000 c.c
Rs.4,00,000.00
(b) Land Cruiser, Patro, Pajero, Range.
Rs.3,00,000.00
Rover or any other luxury jeep and double cabine pick‑up with engine capacity of 2500 cc or above or such other makes as may be notified by the Government.
(2) The tax shall be payable by the owner of the vehicle.
(3) Any person who fails to pay the tax within the prescribed time limit shall in addition to the amount of the tax be liable to pay a penalty not exceeding the amount of the tax due.
(4) Any amount of tax or penalty imposed which remains unpaid shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
(5) The Government may make rules for giving effect to the provisions of this section."
According to him, the said tax is leviable on those vehicles which are registered in the Punjab or outside Punjab provided the said vehicles are "plying" in Punjab, that word "plying" denotes only that vehicle which is being used for hire or reward, that vehicle in question is neither being used for hire or reward, so it does not fall within the ambit of section 7 of Punjab Finance Act, 1997 and is not liable to said tax. He further argued that petitioner is not plying the vehicle but is driving as such even on this score he is not liable to tax, that the word "plying" is only applicable to vehicles which are being used as public, service vehicle as defined in sub‑clause (31) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, that the vehicle in question does not even fall within the category of "public service vehicle" as such is not liable to said tax. He thus, submitted that the impugned orders passed by Respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively are nor sustainable in the eyes of law.
6. Conversely, impugned orders have been supported by the learned A.A.‑G.
7. Admittedly, tax on luxury vehicles has been‑ imposed under section 7 of Punjab Finance Act, 1997 which has been reproduced above. The said tax has been levied to all vehicles whether registered in the Punjab or outside the Punjab. A list of few vehicles which fall in that category has also been given therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to take refuge under the word "plying" which has been used in section 7 (ibid). His stand is that as word "plying" has been used in section 7, so it will be applicable to only those vehicles which are being used for hire or reward and it will not. be applicable to ail other vehicles. This interpretation of section 7 (ibid) of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to reason, as said tax has been imposed upon all vehicles falling in that category irrespective of the fact that said vehicles are being plied for hire and reward or not. The distinction which the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to create between words "plying" and "driving" does not fit in the present scheme of events. No such intention of the Legislature can be gathered from a bare reading of section 7 (ibid). The mere fact that detail of vehicles has been given in subsection (a) of. section 7 of Punjab Finance Act, 1997 means that all such vehicles which are being used/plied by its owners are liable to said tax whether such vehicles have been registered in the Punjab or outside the Punjab. The vehicle in question has rightly been assessed to tax by Respondents Nos. l and 2 vide impugned orders.
8. For reasons given above, the writ petition is adjudged to be devoid of any force. Consequently, it fails and is hereby dismissed.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./R.43/L Petition dismissed.