Case Details

Citation(s)
1999 SLG 1069 1999 SLD 1069 1999 PLC 1173
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeals Nos.167, 168 and 169 of 1998, decision dated: 15-02-1999.(On appeals from the judgment of the High Court dated 6-8-1998 in Writ Petitions Nos. 21 of 1998 and 106 of 1998).
SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J. AND BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary, Azad Kashmir Government. Civil Secretariat, Muzaffarabad"

VS

Haji MIR MUHAMMAD NASEER and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)-------Ss. 31 (4), 42 & 44----Azad Jammu and Kashmir Finance Act, 1998, S.4---Notification dated 21-11-1997 and 23-12-1997---Opening of new educational institutions and raising of tuition fee---"Fee" and "tax"--­Distinction---Whether tuition fee a tax---Government through notification opened some new educational institutions and raised tuition fees payable by students of said educational institutions---Fees chargeable from students were challenged before High Court in Constitutional petition alleging that fees amounted to "tax" which under provisions of S.31 (4) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 could be imposed only by Legislative Assembly and not through an executive action---High Court accepting Constitutional petition, concluded that fee chargeable from students was "tax" because no part of said fee was earmarked necessarily for rendering service in return to those from whom it was to be recovered--­Validity---High Court had failed to take note of the fact that tuition fee was being received from only those students who were to receive education from teachers in educational institutions---Student was paying money and in return was getting education--- "Tax" was a compulsory exaction of money by a public Authority for a public purpose and was not a payment for any specific service rendered---In respect of "fee" there was "quid pro quo" which meant "something for something" while in "tax" it was absent---In case of payment of fee not only there was "quid pro quo", but was absence of compulsory exaction because tuition fee was to be paid by one who would go to the educational institution and not by one who would not go there---Tuition fee as well as admission fee charged from students was a "fee" and could not by any standard be construed as tax. Rahim Ullah Khan and 65 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Agricultural Forest and Cooperation Department, Peshawar and 5 others 1990 CLC 550; Mehboob Yar Khan and another v., Municipal Committee, Mian Channu and 2 others PLD 1975 Lah. 748; Abdul Majid and another v. Province of East Pakistan and others PLD…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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