Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2025 P T D 954 [Sindh High Court] Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ Messrs MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. through Authorized Managing Partner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and 3 others Constitution Petitions Nos. D-132 of 2019 and 126 other connected petitions as per Annexure "A", decided on 6th January, 2024. (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 70(6) & Fourth Schedule, Part I, Entry No. 50---Federal Legislative List---"Taxes on land and buildings" and "taxes on capital value of assets"---Scope---Both type of taxes are separate subjects/entries---Prior one primarily belongs to Provincial Legislature and the later subject belongs to Federal Legislature. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 270A---Interpretation of Constitution---Vires of laws---Principle---Supremacy of the Constitution has to be safeguarded---Laws which cannot with stand legislative competence must yield their way to Parliamentary and Constitutional supremacy, and laws after such scrutiny, if found transgressing such mandate, must be seen to have melted down to the frame of the Constitution---Laws made during the period mentioned in Art. 270A of the Constitution, if found violative, must be eclipsed by the supreme law, i.e. the Constitution and it cannot be vice versa---Laws in derogation of such principle are ultra vires. (c) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----Ss. 60, 80, 106 & 109---Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order (P.O. No. 13 of 1979), Art. 3---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 15A---Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched., Part I, Entry No. 50 [as amended by Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution]---Federal Legislative List---Property tax, recovery of---Jurisdiction of Cantonment Boards---Tax, utilization of---Petitioners/owners of properties assailed tax demand based on annual rental value of property by respondents/Cantonment Boards---Validity---Taxes on immovable properties had been excluded from the domain of the Federation, the Federal Legislature and consequently respondents/Cantonment Boards could not levy, impose, charge and/or recover such taxes as levied by it on immovable properties from the date of restoration of the Constitution and more particularly after Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, either under Cantonments Act, 1924 or under Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979---Such levy by respondents/Cantonment Boards had been initiated in terms of Cantonments Act, 1924---Laws on the basis of which respondents/ Cantonment Boards were recovering taxes opposed the Constitutional/ Legislative competence and was beyond their legal powers and capacity, which was ultra vires under existing frame of the Constitution on legislative competence---There is no special provision for a tax on annual rental value of immovable property to be utilized as an "expenditure" under Cantonments Act, 1924, thus general provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 cannot be applied---"Tax" per se on immovable property, under S. 15A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 can be utilized or adjusted as "expenditure"---This is a general provision for all levies on property and is not specific to any particular fee or tax and a direct nexus of subject tax can be a misapplication---Power to levy, charge, impose and recover any or all taxes separately on immovable property is an alien object under Cantonment laws in existing frame of the Constitution---Tax on annual rental value of immovable property was a tax and not a fee or any other genre of levy---Respondents/Cantonment Boards had no power to levy tax on immovable property including tax on annual rental value of immovable property---After revival of the Constitution, and Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, provisions of Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979 had no effect on the subject---Subject law to the extent of provision of S. 3 of Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979 was no longer protected---High Court declared that after Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Entry 50 in Fourth Schedule to the Constitution was amended, consequently Federation and all Cantonment Boards lacked competence, power and jurisdiction to levy, charge, impose and recover any or all taxes on any immovable property, including but not limited to tax on annual rental value of immovable property---High Court further declared that Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution consequently restored competence and jurisdiction of Province to levy, charge, recover and legislate on subject so identified and to pursue it accordingly---High Court directed that amounts so recovered by Cantonment Boards under subject of tax in question, since Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution also called for an account---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041; Haider Mukhtar and others v. Government of Punjab and others PLD 2014 Lah. 214; Khalid Mahmood and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 74 others PLD 2003 Lah. 629; Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others PLD 1974 SC 152; Mehmood Khan Achakzai and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1997 SC 426; Sargodha Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 3 others PLD 2004 SC 743; Pakistan through Ministry of Defence v. Province of Punjab PLD 1975 SC 37; Messrs Gulzar Cinema v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1978 Kar. 500; Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416; Sajjad Hussain v. The State PLD 1989 FST 50; State v. Sajjad Hussain 1993 SCMR 1523; C.P. No.D-4942 of 2022; Zaka Ud Din Malik v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 PTD 268; State Bank of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 Pesh. 46; Ghulam Musfafa Khan's case PLD 1989 SC 26; Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan 2016 PTD 2269; Mst. Nargis Moeen v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2003 Lah. 730; Mst. Sultan Jahan v. Cantonment Board Lahore Cantt. 2007 YLR 1681; Lahore Station Commander v. Col. (R) Muhammad Abbas Malik 2006 CLC 1674; Continental Biscuits Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2011 MLD 1006; Pakistan International Freight of Forwarders Association v. Province of Sindh 2017 PTD 1; Pakistan Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 PTD 266; Cantonment Board's case Civil Appeal No.1363 of 2018; Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal 95 1 SCC 707; Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation AIR 2021 SC 5316; Workers' Welfare Funds, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Islamabad and others v. East Pakistan Chrome Tannery (Pvt.) Ltd. and others PLD 2017 SC 28; Messrs Cherat Cement Co. Ltd., Nowshera and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and others PLD 2021 SC 327; Exide Pakistan Limited v. Cantonment Board Clifton 2012 CLC 1124; The Bank of Khyber v. Municipal Corporation Gujrat PLD 2021 Lah. 108; Raj Kumar v. Hyderabad Cantonment Board 2006 MLD 549; Civil Appeal No.1363 of 2018; Cyrus Cowasjee v. KMC PLD 2022 Sindh 106; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs Wi-Tribe Pakistan Ltd. 2020 SCMR 420; Muhammad Ayaz Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2020 PTD 2200; Federation of Pakistan v. Durrani Ceramics 2014 SCMR 1630; Azgard Nine v. Government of Pakistan 2013 PTD 1030; Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2020 SC 641; Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals v. State of Kerala (1981) 4 SCC 391 and Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1983) 4 SCC 353) rel. Ghulam Musfafa Khan's case PLD 1989 SC 26 distinguished. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Fourth Sched., Part I, Entry No. 50---Levy of tax---Classification of properties according to their value---Principle---If classification is dependent upon improved facilities, it counts good but purpose could be achieved by one master/regulator i.e. the Province---If classification does not rest on good tests, then it is bound to collapse which creates discrimination and there should be one parameter/yardstick to evaluate---Different properties in an area/common area may have different values notwithstanding the area itself is classified as a category but within that category the value of property/building may vary, depending upon its characteristics to evaluate and measure rental value it may fetch, hence the fact that property situated in a particular local body/ municipality, itself should not form basis of classification---There should be one regulator to deal with evaluation with common tools of evaluations. (e) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Constitutionality of law---Principle---Constitutionality of any law, on the touchstone of any provision of the Constitution, being opposed, could always be challenged and only because such challenge had not been thrown earlier does not amount to an acquiescence and would not be immune from a challenge in future---In enforcing Constitutional frame work, the concept of acquiescence is an alien object. (f) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----Ss. 60 & 80---Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order (P.O. No. 13 of 1979), Art. 3---Sindh Local Government Act (XLII of 2013), S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched., Part I, Entry No. 50 [as amended by Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution]---Federal Legislative List---Property tax, recovery of---Jurisdiction of Cantonment Boards---Petitioners/owners of properties assailed tax demand based on annual rental value of their properties by respondents/Cantonment Boards---Plea raised by respondent/Cantonment Boards was that annual rental value on immovable properties had devolved upon local Government hence Cantonment Boards as Local Government were also empowered for the same---Validity---Cantonment Boards were excluded under S. 14 of Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, therefore, no power to levy such tax could be derived by respondents/Cantonment Boards from such law, and no powers could be drawn from any Federal law as it was a provincial subject---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----S. 80---Tax on annual rental value of immovable property---Non-payment---Effect---Tax imposed on immovable property, under S. 80 of Cantonments Act, 1924 runs on the property itself and not on the owner or occupier---As such it is a tax on immovable property and not a tax on a person's income. Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal 95 1 SCC 707 and Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation AIR 2021 SC 5316 rel. (h) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----Ss. 60, 80 & 200---Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched., Part I, Entry 50 [as amended by Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution]---Federal Legislative List---Tax and fee---Distinction---Principle of quid pro quo---Applicability---Petitioners/owners of properties assailed tax demand based on annual rental value of their properties by respondents/ Cantonment Boards---Plea raised by respondent/Cantonment Boards was that they were charging fee under S. 200 of Cantonments Act, 1924---Validity---For imposition of any fee, services under the principle of quid pro quo must be specified in the exhaustive list provided under S. 200 of Cantonments Act, 1924---If a particular fee claimed for a service under the principle of quid pro quo is not provided for under S. 200 of Cantonments Act, 1924, such fee cannot be imposed---Provision of S. 200 of Cantonments Act, 1924 is meant for levying fee, and an exhaustive list of all those levies against which, by applying principle of quid pro quo, a fee could be levied---If any nature of service to claim fee was not mentioned therein then it could not be imposed by respondents/Cantonment Boards at all---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal 95 1 SCC 707; Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation AIR 2021 SC 5316; Workers' Welfare Funds, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Islamabad and others v. East Pakistan Chrome Tannery (Pvt.) Ltd. and others PLD 2017 SC 28; Messrs Cherat Cement Co. Ltd., Nowshera and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and others PLD 2021 SC 327; Exide Pakistan Limited v. Cantonment Board Clifton 2012 CLC 1124; The Bank of Khyber v. Municipal Corporation Gujrat PLD 2021 Lah. 108 and Raj Kumar v. Hyderabad Cantonment Board 2006 MLD 549 rel. (i) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----Ss. 106 & 109---Property tax---Cantonment Funds---Principle of quid pro quo---Applicability---Details provided under S. 109 of Cantonments Act, 1924 are neither specific nor exhaustive but rather general in nature---Principle of quid pro quo is applied when specific provision/facility as against such recovery of fee is made---Cantonment Boards have several other services which they are rendering and are also recovering amount which could have a specific purpose---Amount of tax on property recovered as a tax on annual rental value, cannot be equated to be meant for such a purpose---Purpose must be specific and must relate to a levy itself---There may not be a requirement of arithmetic precision but there must be a direct co-relation between them for applying quid pro quo. Ayan Mustafa Memon assisted by Ali Zuberi, Habibullah Masood, Amna Khalil, Nawaz Khan and Shahreen Chugtai, Khwaja Shamsul Islam along with Imran Taj, Imtiaz Ali Shah and Khalil Awan (in C.P. No. D-2603/2023), Ms. Naheed A. Shahid and Daniyal Ellahi (in C.Ps. Nos. D-71 /2022 and 848/2023), Ali John, Altamash Arab, (in C.P. No. D-6819/2022), Abdul Wajid Wyne, M. Rafi Kamboh (in C.Ps. Nos. D-6396 and 6397 of 2020), Arif Khan, M. Saad Siddiqui and Sahibzada Mubeen (in C.P. No. D-840/2022), 5861/2021, 3246/2021, 2970/2020, 1494/2019), Farhan Zia Abrar, Zain A. Jatoi, Muhammad Mustafa Mumdani (in C.P. No. D-2521/2022), Ghulam Haider Shaikh (in C.P. No. D-1251/2021), (Abid Hussain and Zahid Mehmood (in C.Ps. Nos. D-3170 and 3171 of 2021), Fahad Arif Khilji (in C.Ps. Nos. D-3763 and 3764/2021), Ahmed Mujtaba (in C.P. No. D-3803/ 2022), Naeem Suleman, Arshad Hussain Shehzad, Waseem Farooq, Tauqir Randhawa, Kashan Ahmed, Mian Mushtaq Ahmed (in C.Ps. Nos. D-4306 to 4327 of 2017 and 3532/2018), Hanif Faisal Alam, Hassan Khursheed Hashmi (in C.P. No. D-5521/2022), Salman Mirza and Ahmed Magsi (in C. Ps. Nos. D-132/2019, 3135/2021 and 3359/ 2021), Abdul Qayoom Abbasi, Raja Muhammad Safeer, Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah (in C.P. No. D-2797/2021), Syed Noman Zahid Ali, Arsal Rahat Ali, Mehmood Ali for IBA and Behzad Haider (in C.P. No. D-5459/2022), Ahmed Madni and Peer Ali, in C.P. No. D-446 of 2023), Ms.Sadia Sumera (in C.P. No. D-4184/2022), Ahmed Nizamani (in C.P. No. D-3246/2021), Dr. Rana Khan, Rajesh Kumar (in C.P. No. D-5673/2021), Malik Khushhal Khan in C.Ps. Nos. D-3987/2018 and 946/2022), Muhammad Naved, Fazal Mehmood Sherwani (in C.P. No. D-4159/2020) and Masood Ali for Petitioners. Abdullah Munshi, Shajeeuddin Siddiqui and Imdad Ali Bhatti for Clifton Cantonment Board (in C.P. No. D-4985/2018, 5391/2018, 3426/ 2018, 5166/2018, 5167/2018, 6506/2020 and 1251/2021), Farooq Hamid Naek assisted by Syed Qaim A. Shah, G.Murtaza Bhanbhro and Saad H. Ammar (in C.P. No. D-132/2019 and 1220/2023) for Respondent No.2), Dr. Farogh Naseem, Ahmed Ali Hussain, S. Zaeem Hyder, Aman Aftab, M. Aizaz Ahmed, Syed Shohrat Hussain Rizvi for Karachi Cantonment Board, Aqib Hussain, Afnan Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Iftikhar Hussain, Zohra Ahmed for CBC (in C.P. No. D-1228/ 2019, 1949/2019 and 946/2022), Dr. Shahab Imam and Syeda Abida Bukhari for CBC (in C.Ps. Nos.D-1220 and 2603/2023), Ashraf Ali Butt, Rehmatunnisa, Sohail H.K. Rana, Ms.Huma F. Bhutto, Fahim Haider Moosvi, Zain A. Soomro for Respondent No.2 (in C.Ps. Nos. D-1661 and 249 of 2021), Akhtar Hussain Shaikh, Syed M. Ghazen, Shahid Ahmed for KW and SC, K, A. Jahangir (in C.P. No. D-3100/2023) for CBC, Muhammad Aqeel Qureshi (in C.P. No. D-4606/2020), Shahid Hussain Korejo (in C.P. No. D-6803/2022) for Respondent No.2, Saqib Soomro and Ahmed Mujtaba (in C.P. No. D-6806/2022) for Respondent No.2, Ameer Ali Soomro (in C.P. No. D-6805/2022) for Respondent No.2, Asif Amin for Respondent No.2 (in C.P. No. D-1333/2021), Fozia M.Murad for Respondent (in C.Ps. Nos. D-132/2019, 3023, 3669, 7318, 7460 of 2015), Talha Abbasi for DHA (in C.P. No. D-4985/2018) for Respondents. Zeeshan Adhi, Addl. AG, Saifullah and Sandeep Molani, Asst. A.G., Qazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui, D.A.G., Khaleeq Ahmed, D.A.G., Malik Sadaqat Khan, Addl. Attorney General and Qazi Ayazuddin, Asst. Attorney General. Dates of hearing: 17th, 24th, 25th, 30th October, 1st, 6th, 10th, 13th, 15th, 20th, 21st, 28th November, 4th, 13th and 14th December, 2023. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.-The subject matter of these petitions is Tax demand based on annual rental value of property by different Cantonment Boards from the petitioners. The petitioners' assertion is that it is a kind of tax and levy that taxes remain with the provinces only whereas the federal government and the cantonment boards claim such levy to be in their competence. In support of such questions raised, both sides counsel have assisted us and summarized their structural points as under:- COUNSELS' BULLET POINT SUBMISSIONS MR. AYAN MUSTAFA MEMON Mr. Ayan Mustafa Memon, learned counsel for petitioner in C.P. No. D-2603/2023) has made the following submissions: Post-18th Amendment, the subject of levying property tax rests with the Provinces. Placed reliance on Entry No.50 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Contended that after omission of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which was protected for a period by the Presidential Order of 1979, levying of all property tax now rested with the Provincial Government. Argued that property tax had always been a provincial subject. Contended that Entry 2 of the Fourth Schedule relied upon by the petitioners was not a tax entry. Argued that after the 18th Amendment, with regard to tax entries, there was no provision for concurrent taxation. Placed reliance on PLD 1975 SC 37, PLD 1978 Karachi 500 and PLD 2022 Peshawar 46. Submitted that omission of 79 Order via P.O would not create any vacuum on account of the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 via 18th Amendment to Constitution. Additionally, argued that any statute not in consonance with the Constitution of Pakistan is invalid and be held accordingly. Pleaded that Respondents' reliance on the Cantonment Act, 1924 was misconceived. Relied on PLD 1989 SC 416. Contended that the above case law had been followed and approved, cited by the Supreme Court in 1993 SCMR 1523. Further contended that as per the Benazir Bhutto case, the referred principles had been further expanded. Relied on pages 1528 page 1530 of the Benazir Bhutto case. Concluded that the Provinces had domain over property tax, and not the federal government, and relied on Freight Forwarder's case (2017 PTD 1). Relied heavily on the interpretation of Article 270A of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in terms of Benazir's case. MR. KHAWAJA SHAMSUL ISLAM, Learned Counsel For Petitioner in C.P. NO. D-2603/2023). Mr. Khawaja Shamsul Islam was asked to address only those points which are not covered by other counsel to save the time. He then took us to the history of cantonment and their formation. It is claimed that these cantonment boards are essentially civil/housing societies and cannot be identified as cantonments. He claimed that under the garb of Cantonment board, the authority under the act are trespassing provincial land and federal land abutting seashore and the geographical extension is not permissible in such way. Additionally he took us to the impugned notification in his petition which unilaterally enhanced the assessment to many folds thus rendering the mechanism of Sections 60 to 64 of Cantonment Act as redundant. It is claimed that person issuing the said notification is not identified by Cantonment Act, 1924. He objected to the creation of new cantonment after urbanization and notification in this regard by Federal Government. MR. ZEESHAN ADHI, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, SINDH Argued that property tax had always been a provincial subject. To illustrate this he took us through the several laws, starting from the Government Act of India of 1935, 1956 Constitution, the Constitution of 1962 and the Constitution of 1973. He argued that any statute not in consonance with the Constitution of Pakistan is invalid. Pleaded that Respondents' reliance on the Cantonment Act, 1924 was misconceived and also relied upon PLD 1989 SC 416 (relevant page 509 placitum AA, page 511, both paragraphs and 512 second paragraph). Contended that the above case law had been approved by the Supreme Court in 1993 SCMR 1523. Concluded that the Provinces had domain over property tax, and not the federal government. Also relied upon Benazir's case as far as application of Article 270A is concerned. MR. ABDULLAH MUNSHI, learned counsel for Respondent/Clifton Cantonment Board (C.P. No.D-4985/2018, C.P. No.D-5166/2018, C.P. No.D-5167/2018). Commenced submissions with the history of the cantonments in the Indian Subcontinent -pre-partition till present. Provided a backdrop of how the Cantonments came about in the Indian Subcontinent, starting from the Cantonment Act of 1864, Cantonment Codes of 1899, 1912 and finally, the Cantonments Act of 1924, which regulated the municipal functions of the Cantonment Boards. Argued that there was nothing in the Cantonments Act, 1924, which violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Relied on I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041 and Lucky Cement Ltd. v. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government and Rural Development, Peshawar 2022 SCMR 1994. Further, argued that if there was/is a difference of opinion with regard to the powers under Cantonments Act, 1924, between the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments, Article 184 of the Constitution of Pakistan should intervened. The private petitioners challenging the constitutionality of the federal government's powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan were/are acting contrary to Article 184. Contended that in case of an action initiated by any of the Provincial Governments without adopting the procedure highlighted under the Articles of the Constitution of Pakistan, such matter is to be agitated before the Supreme Court of Pakistan only and not the High Courts. He relied on Haider Mukhtar and others v. Government of Punjab and others PLD 2014 Lahore 214 and Khalid Mahmood and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 74 others PLD 2003 Lahore 629. As a corollary argued that the Petitions filed before us are mala fide and he relied on The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others PLD 1974 SC 152. Further contended that under Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, the laws promulgated under the Seventh Schedule (Article 270-A (6)) were saved. The Seventy Schedule included the Cantonments (Urban Immovables Property and Entertain-ment Duty) Order, 1979, which would remain in place. Contended that after Article 270-A, when the Eighth Amendment ratified the said provision, the Presidential Order, which included Cantonment's power to tax, was protected and could not be assailed until and unless the Parliament enacted fresh legislation on the same subject. Additionally, argued that none of the Petitioners had challenged the validity of the Presidential Orders which continued to remain in place. He relied on the Federation of Pakistan and another v. Ghulam Mustafa Khar PLD 1989 SC 26, Mehmood Khan Achakzai and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1997 SC 426 and Sargodha Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 3 others PLD 2004 SC 743. Further submitted that section 14 of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, specifically excluded "Cantonments" and tax on annual rental value was also excluded under Schedule "V" of the said Act. Submitted that the Cantonments had the power to charge property tax and placed reliance on Pakistan v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 1975 SC 37, PLD 2022 Peshawar 46. Further submitted…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant