Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLD 1522 = 1991 CLC 796
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.1911 of 1968, heard on 26th February, 1991.
Presented By: Before Manzoor Hussain Sial, J
-------Talib Haider Rizvi for Petitioner. Mian Muzaffar Hussain for
Respondents.

Messrs MOON ELITE ENTERPRISES --- Petitioner

VERSUS

M.C. LYALLPUR and others --- Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Recovery of Taxes) Rules, 1962--- ---- R. 3 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 --- Principles of natural justice, violation of --- Respondent Authority without first issuing show-cause notice to petitioner about his liability to pay amount allegedly falling due against him and without holding inquiry to- ascertain disputed amount, issued demand notice to petitioner to pay that amount within specified period --- Authority, by not issuing show-cause notice which otherwise was imperative for the Authority to issue and by not providing adequate opportunity to petitioner to explain his position, had violated cardinal principles of natural justice --- High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, set aside order of Authority below. Abdul Latif v. Government of West Pakistan P L D 1962 AC 384 ref. Talib Haider Rizvi for Petitioner. Mian Muzaffar Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1991. JUDGMENT The petitioner was issued a notice of demand- on 23-12-1967 for payment of Rs.1,48,538.75 by respondent No.1 presumably under Rule 3 of the West Pakistan Municipal Committee (Recovery of Taxes) Rules, 1962. In the notice of demand it was indicated that if the amount was not paid within 15 days of the service of notice, the amount would be recovered under warrant of distress. No formal notice to show cause within 15 days was, however, issued to the petitioner in respect thereto. It appears that the Taxation Officer did not hold inquiry that the aforementioned amount was ascertained amount and had fallen due against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was imperative for the Taxation Officer to have first issued…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register