| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1953 SLG 2 1953 SLD 2 1953 PLD 433 |
Lahore High Court
Letters Patent Appeal No. 17 of 1951 decided on 1st May, 1953, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the decree of the Court of Mr. Justice M. R. Kayani, dated the 11th day of December 1950, passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 194 of 1949
MUHAMMAD KHURSHID ZAMAN AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ
M. Z. Kitchlew for Appellant. Hamid-ud-Din, Feroze Din and M. Yaqub Ali Khan for
Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 17 of 1951 decided on 1st May, 1953, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the decree of the Court of Mr. Justice M. R. Kayani, dated the 11th day of December 1950, passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 194 of 1949
MUHAMMAD KHURSHID ZAMAN AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ
M. Z. Kitchlew for Appellant. Hamid-ud-Din, Feroze Din and M. Yaqub Ali Khan for
Respondent
WEST PUNJAB PROVINCE--Defendant
VS
K. B. AMIRUDDIN AND OTHERS--Plaintiffs
Law: Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940
Section: 7,9
(a) Interpretation of Statutes- Taxing Act-In case of doubt construction beneficial to subject should be adopted in respect of liability to be taxed. The provisions of a taxing Act may be broadly divided into two categories-those that determine the liability to be taxed and those that provide the machinery for its assessment and realization. With respect to the first category the rule of interpretation is that the charge must be imposed by clear and unambiguous language and in cases of doubt a construction beneficial to the subject should be adopted. With respect to the second category, however, the rule of construction is entirely different. If the liability to be taxed be clear the machinery sections ought to be interpreted so as to enable the Crown to realize the tax unless there be compelling reasons to the contrary. Drummonds v. Colins 6 T C 525; Commissioner of Incometax, Bengal v. Messrs Mahaliram Ramjidas A I R 1940 P C 124; M. S. Gopalaswami Chettiar v. Secretary of State A I R 1933 Mad. 748 and Scott v. Legg (1876) 2 Ex. D. 39 ref. (b) Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (XVII of 1940)---Ss. 7 and 9-First valuation list prepared regarding houses-Subsequently other list prepared in respect of agricultural land--Subsequent list is valid-Two lists form one complete list. Section 9 does not apply only to a change in circumstances. Clauses (a) and (b) are also examples of bringing into accord with existing circumstances' and (a) and (b) are not cases of changed circumstances. That (a) and (b) are only particular cases falling within the general power granted by the words `to bring into accord with existing circumstances' is made clear by the use of the words `in particular'. Without reference, therefore, to any other principle and by merely reading the section as a whole one is forced to the conclusion that the operation of the words quoted above cannot be limited to a change in circumstances. Looking at section 9, we do not stand in need of any straining of language. Here the words used by the Legislature are such as would include the case which has now arisen. and if we refer to other parts of the section, the interpretation suggested by the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492