Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 77,162,163

Law:

Section: 282,284,286-B

(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ---Arts. 77, 162 & 163---Levy of tax and fee etc.---Principle---Fiscal and charging statutes are to be strictly construed---No government or authority can compulsorily extract money from any class of persons either in form of tax, fee, charge or levy, unless specifically authorized under law. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ---Delegated legislation---Levy of fee---Scope---When a parent statute (the governing law) does not empower levy of fee, then levy of such fee through delegated legislation in shape of by-laws is not permissible. (c) Words and phrases--- ---"Fee" and "Tax"---Distinction---"Tax" is a compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered whereas, "fee" may be generally defined to be a charge for a special service rendered to individuals by some government agency or a local council under principle of quid pro quo. Collector of Customs v. Sheikh Spinning Mills 1999 SCMR 1402; McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd. v. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames 1994 SCMR 1393 and Lucky Cement Factory v. Government of N.W.F.P. 2013 SCMR 1511 rel. (d) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ---Ss. 282, 284 & 286-B---Advertisement fee, charging of---Delegation of powers---Principle of Quid pro quo---Applicability---Petitioner company was aggrieved of demand notice issued by a private company for recovery of advertisement fee on behalf of Cantonment Board with regard to signboards and advertisements affixed in private shops---Validity---Cantonment Board was not providing any service to petitioner for displaying and advertising its products on billboards/signboards of shops on its private vendors/retailer shops---Such was a private arrangement between petitioner and shopkeepers---Petitioner used billboards/signboards of shops to advertise its products at the expense of petitioner---High Court declared illegal, money demanded by private company under the name of 'advertisement fee' without providing any services in respect thereof, on principle of quid pro quo---Cantonment Board could not delegate power to a private person and could only delegate the…