Law:

Section: 199

SUMMARY Held: Cantonment Act, 1924- Section 60- Charging Provision-The Cantonment Board cannot extend the scope of the charging provisions beyond what is explicitly provided in the law. To do so would contravene the principle that taxing statutes must be construed strictly, and any ambiguities must be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer… The Cantonment Board did not possess the statutory authority at the relevant time to levy an advertisement fee, as defined under Section 60 read with Section 200 of the Act. Ref: Rajkumar v. Hyderabad Cantonment Board [2006 MLD 549]; Munuwar Younus and others v. Karachi Cantonment Board [2011 MLD 1006]; Hyderabad Cantonment Board v. Raj Kumar and others [2015 SCMR 1385]. Tax and Fee- differentiated- The key difference is that taxes are levied as a common burden, while fees confer specific benefits to the payee. Without a clear earmarking for services, a fee may be deemed a tax. Ref: Collector of Customs v. Sheikh Spinning Mills [1992 SCMR 1402]; Government of N.W.F.P. v. Rahimullah [1992 SCMR 750]; Muhammad Ismail v. Chief Cotton Inspector [PLD 1966 SC 388]; Federation of Pakistan v. Durrani Ceramics [2014 SCMR 1630]; Kewal Krishan Puri vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 1008] & Hingir Rampur Coal Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa [AIR 1961 SC 459]. Cantonment (Amendment) Act, 2023-retrospective legislation- It is an established position that retrospective application of law cannot be made unless specifically provided for, particularly in tax cases. It is equally true that legislature has the power to legislate retrospectively but the same must be expressly provided…. The relevant provisions of the newly substituted Section 60 of the Act of 1924 grant the Board the authority to impose any or all taxes, fees, tolls, and charges as specified in Schedule VII. However, it is important to note that under the old legal framework, particularly in light of the case law discussed earlier, the Board did not possess the authority to levy advertisement fees Ref: Commissioner Inland Revenue v. National Public Welfare Society [2025 SCMR 1073]. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Mekotex [PLD 2024 SC 1168]. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local…