KARACHI: Cantt boards can’t levy transit tax, SHC told
By Shujaat Ali Khan
KARACHI, May 3: Cantonment boards have no authority to levy taxes or fees on vehicles passing through areas under their jurisdiction, a provincial government law officer stated before a division bench of the Sindh High Court on Tuesday. The bench was hearing a petition challenging the recovery of amounts ranging from Rs200 to Rs350 a bus entering or leaving Hyderabad from or for Karachi by a cantonment contractor. The petitioners said the inter-city public vehicles had to pass through the Hyderabad cantonment areas and were taxed according to their seating capacity.
They said the Road Transport Authority was the licensing authority, which realized the licence fee. A tax, they said, could be imposed only under the law. Appearing for the provincial government, which had been impleaded as a respondent besides the cantonment board, its contractor and the district police, Additional Advocate-General Abbas Ali said there was no provision in the Cantonment Act to authorize the imposition of the impugned levy. A parking fee of Rs20 a vehicle could be recovered for parking facilities but there was no justification for a transit tax. The Imposition of Taxes Rules also did not mention the levy being recovered by the respondent contractor.
The bench, which consisted of Justices Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, asked the cantonment board counsel to ascertain the legal authority for the levy and the reasonable rate at which it could be charged and adjourned further proceedings.
EDO (HEALTH): Another division bench comprising Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Azizullah M. Memon asked Dr Nizamuddin Memon, who had questioned his transfer as the executive district officer (health) of the city government, to hand over charge of his office to his successor.
It also directed the provincial government to appoint him to a suitable post according to his seniority. The parties were told to report compliance by May 12. The petitioner had also challenged the appointment of the chief minister’s health adviser, Faisal Malik, who ordered his transfer.
Contesting the petition, Additional Advocate-General M. Ahmed Pirzada argued that it was not maintainable. The petition pertained to a service matter, which could exclusively be adjudicated by the service tribunal and was, therefore, outside the scope of Article 199. The provincial government was fully competent to utilize his services elsewhere in conformity with the service law and rules. There was no legal or constitutional bar to the appointment of CM’s advisers, he submitted.
PAY PHONES: The bench consisting of Justices A.Z. Jamali and S.Z.H. Jaffery adjourned the hearing of a petition by pay phone operators and public call office owners against advance payment of income tax.
They said they did not sell prepaid cards to their consumers and recovered the prescribed charges for telephone calls made by them. They were no different from other phone subscribers and were not liable to pay advance income tax.
The petitioners said a tax could be imposed only under an express provision of law and a category of taxpayers could not be expanded just by inference. They, however, informed the bench that negotiations were being conducted with the Central Board of Revenue. The bench, which had stayed the recovery of advance tax, adjourned further hearing to May 24.
CS SUMMONED: Justice Amir Hani Muslim, meanwhile, asked the chief secretary to appear personally on May 16 and apprise the court of the measures taken by him to comply with an order passed in October 2004.
The court had directed the chief secretary to help resolve the dispute between the Malir Development Authority and the Trading Corporation of Pakistan over the construction of a road on a stretch of land claimed by the latter.
The judge had summoned the chief secretary on Tuesday but he was away in Islamabad for official work. Senior revenue board member Anwar Haider and the land utilization secretary appeared on Tuesday but had nothing to communicate on steps taken to resolve the dispute in compliance of the court order. AAG Abbas Ali sought time for compliance but the judge ordered that the CS must first appear personally to explain non-compliance.
REINSTATED: Mian Gul, a sacked Pakistan Steel Mills employee, was on Tuesday reinstated with all back benefits by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Maqbool Baqar.
The petitioner submitted through Advocate Khalid Imran that he worked as a fitter on daily wages but was removed from service without any justification in 1987. He moved a petition in the Sindh High Court in 1991 but Section 2-A was inserted in the Service Tribunal Act while the petition was still pending.
The petitioner moved the Federal Service Tribunal under the newly-inserted provision. The tribunal reinstated him and a petition for leave to appeal against the FST decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court. His counsel argued before the SHC division bench on Tuesday that under ‘the doctrine of merger’, the SC order on PSM appeal was enforceable by the high court under Article 187 (2) of the Constitution.
Allowing the petition, the bench directed the PSM to implement the SC order and reinstate the PSM employee with effect from the date of his removal in 1987.
