KARACHI, March 30: The Sindh High Court asked a provincial attorney on Wednesday to submit within 20 days the formula on the basis of which the property tax payable by a petitioner corporation was calculated.
The Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Supply Corporation moved a petition through Advocate Muzaffarul Haq complaining that it had been saddled with a property tax liability of Rs 2.7 million for its godowns at Korangi by the provincial excise and taxation department.
It claimed that no public notice inviting objections was issued before revising the valuation of the property in contravention of the relevant provisions of the Urban Immovable Property Act, 1958. The petitioner was not heard on the enhanced valuation of its property. Earlier, it paid only Rs 500,000 to 600,000 annually as tax on the subject property.
Contesting the petition on behalf of the provincial government, Additional Advocate-General M. Ahmed Pirzada argued that the valuation was made strictly in accordance with the newly-inserted Section 5A of the Act of 1958. The amending ordinance was constitutionally protected and its validity could not be challenged. He said objections were duly invited and the petitioner was issued a challan for Rs 2.7 million. The amount included arrears, which the petitioner had defaulted on.
A division bench, comprising Justices Ataur Rahman and Zia Pervez, which had earlier asked the petitioner to deposit the undisputed amount pending hearing, asked the AAG to submit the valuation formula within 20 days and adjourned further hearing.
FLYOVER ISSUE: Another division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Justice Maqbool Baqar, asked the city district government and the Faisal cantonment board to resolve the matter of jurisdiction over the FT flyover.
The issue has been agitated by an outdoor advertizer who stated that he had acquired an advertisement site on the flyover but had to pay the charges to the CDG as well as the cantonment board. He said the recovery of the same charges by two authorities was illegal.
Appearing for the CDGK, Advocate Manzoor Ahmed said the flyover was built and maintained by the city government. It was also responsible for the maintenance of Shahrah-i-Faisal, on which the flyover had constructed. The bench asked the two authorities to try to determine the question of jurisdiction and submit a report within a week, failing which the court would proceed and decide the matter first.
The bench also issued notices to the ministry of defence and the Pakistan Navy estate office in a petition moved by a Gharo landowner. The petitioner, Ali Sher, claimed that he as the owner of 50 acres at Deh Gharo coastal area extracted ‘reti’ and ‘bajri’ from his land. Certain officials of the PN estate office, were, however, forcing him to make illegal payments and have blocked access to his property. The action infringed his fundamental right to own and enjoy his property, the petitioner alleged.
NWFP MPA: Justice Mushir Alam, meanwhile, fixed April 1 for final hearing of a suit instituted by Laki Marwat (NWFP) MPA Malik Imran Khan against the University of Karachi for declaring his B.Com. degree bogus and against the anti-corruption establishment (ACE), which sought an inquiry into his mandatory educational qualification on certain complaints without hearing him.
Appearing for the ACE, Additional Advocate-General Abbas Ali submitted that the establishment acted bona fide on public complaints and forwarded them to the university for inquiry. It was not an adverse action and no hearing was required. The plaintiff had approached the court earlier but his plea was dismissed. He was prolonging the proceedings only to maintain his petition being heard by Peshawar High Court.
Representing the university, Advocate Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui submitted that the plaintiff flunked the BCom exam and obtained a bogus degree by manipulation and tampering of record in 1994. The register maintained in the personal custody of the examinations controller showed that he secured a cipher in two papers. The university conducted the inquiry impartially and the plaintiff was afforded full opportunity of hearing, the lawyer said.
The plaintiff said the inquiry proceedings violated the norms of justice and were undertaken at the behest of election rivals.