Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 25

THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE:---.--- This consolidated judgment shall decide instant petition, as well as, connected petitions mentioned in Schedule-A, as all these cases raise common questions of law and facts. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by levy of "Luxury House Tax" imposed by Government of Punjab through Section 8 of the Punjab Finance Act, 2014 ("PFA, 2014"). Government of Punjab has re-imposed luxury tax on residential houses measuring 02-Kanals or above and 08-Kanals or above, located on the immovable property in the limits of: (a) a notified rating area under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 (V of 1958) ("the Act of 1958"); (b) a cantonment under the Cantonments Act, 1924; and (c) any other area within the province as notified by the Government. Petitioners received notices along with Challan Form No.32-A, demanding assessed luxury tax on their houses. Through these petitions, petitioners call in question the legality / constitutional validity of the law as well as charging, levy, assessment and demand of luxury tax on residential houses introduced by Section 8 of the PFA, 2014, along with impugned demand notices/Challans. Prayer of instant petition reads as follows:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the impugned luxury tax on residential house re-imposed by and /or under Section 8 of the Punjab Finance Act, 2014 may graciously be struck down and being discriminatory and inconsistent with the fundamental rights entrenched in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, It is further prayed that the impugned Notice may very kindly be set-aside. It is also prayed that, the operation of the Impugned Notice issued by the respondent No.2 may graciously be suspended and the respondents may kindly be restrained from adopting coercive measures for the recovery of impugned luxury tax till the final decision of instant Writ Petition. An appropriate writ/direction may kindly be granted/ issued against the respondents." 3. Mr. Salman Mansoor, Advocate for petitioners opens his arguments by challenging the vires of Section 8 of the PFA, 2014, inter alia, contending that charging of…