Messrs. AMINULLAH KHAN through Proprietor vs EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD, RAWALPINDI and another
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging a recovery notice issued by the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, regarding alleged arrears of property tax. The petitioner contended that taxes had been paid regularly and that no arrears were outstanding. The respondent-Board contested this, providing a detailed breakdown of the Annual Rental Value (A.R.V.) assessments and the actual tax payments made, which demonstrated that the petitioner had consistently made only partial payments, leading to the accumulation of arrears. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's claim of regular payment involved disputed questions of fact, which could not be adjudicated upon in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had failed to exhaust the statutory alternate remedies available under the Cantonments Act, 1924, specifically the appeal process under Sections 84 and 87. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that factual inquiries and statutory appeals are the proper domain for resolving such tax disputes.
- Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding tax payments in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable when statutory remedies under the Cantonments Act, 1924 have not been exhausted?
- Does the High Court have the authority to undertake factual inquiries into tax assessments under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
- Section 84, Cantonments Act, 1924
- Section 87, Cantonments Act, 1924
The petitioner is aggrieved of the recovery notice issued by Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, whereby arrears of property tax of Rs,5,36,635 along with the current demand of Rs, 87,512 for the Property Nos. 9/1 to 9/22, situated at the Mall Road, Rawalpindi Cantt. Owned by the petitioner, have been demanded.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been paying the property tax regularly and is not liable for any arrears.
3. The petition has been contested by the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, through its written reply which shows that the Annual Rental Value of the above said property owned by the petitioner was assessed by the Assessm ent Committee as under: {{TABLE}} Period A.R.V.
1-7-1990 to 31-12-1991 Rs,1,83,360 I-1-1992 to 30-6-1992 'Rs .4 , 53 ,300 1-7-1992 to 30-6-1996 Rs .4 , 08 ,630 1-7-1996 to 30-6-2002 Rs,6,48,219 ' The details of the tax demanded and paid for the above period are as under: Period A.R.V. Tax Demanded Tax Paid 1-7-1990 to 30-6-1991 1,83,60 27,504 Nil 1-7-1991 to 31-12-1991 13,752 Nil 1-1-1992 to 30-6-1992 4,53,300 33,998 24,321 1-7-1992 to 30-6-1993 4.98.630 74,795 24,321 1-7-1993 to 30-6-1994 74,795 Nil 1,7-1994 to 30-6-1995 74,795 50.000 1-7-1995 to 30-6-1996 74,795 35,000 1-7-1996 to 30-6-1997 6,48,219 97.233 35,000 1-7-1997 to 30-6-1998 97,233 35,000 1-7-1998 to 30-6-2000 97,233 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2001 97,233 1-7-2001 to 30-6-2002 97,233 Total: 9,57,832 10% rebat(-)
Total demand: 8,62,049 Paid up to 30-6-1999 2,38,642 Arrears up to 30-6-2002 6,23,407 (+)
10,463 =6,33,870 {{TABLE}}
4. It has further been alleged by the respondent-Board that all the payments made by the writ petitioner as aforementioned, are the part payments on verbal requests of the writ petitioner and he is liable to pay the arrears.
5. The above mentioned chart of payments made by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has not been paying the tax according to the tax demanded, leading to the accumulation of arrears.
The contention of the petitioner's counsel that petitioner had been paying the property tax regularly cannot be gone into and decided by this Court as it is a disputed question of fact and this Court cannot undertake the factual enquiries in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Furthermore, the petitioner's request for the reduction of Annual Rental Value, vide his application, dated 17-7-2000 was considered by the Assessm ent Committee and his request for the reduction of the Annual Rental Value was declined for the period prior to 1-7-1999. However, his request for reduction of A.R.V! For the period from 1-7- 1999 to 2002 is under consideration. The alternate remedy of appeal under section 84 read with section 87 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 is available to the petitioner and he has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court without exhausting the alternate remedies.
6. In view of the above mentioned, I see no merit in this petition which is accordingly 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.
Cited by 3 cases
- Bilquees Khalid vs Federation of Pakistan & Another 2021 SHC 652, 2022 CLC 2002
- Bilquees Khalid and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal 2022 CLC 2002
- NISAR AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs CANTONMENT BOARD 2012 MLD 1202