Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 608 2010 SLD 608 2010 CLD 975
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petitions Nos. 1982 of 2006, 742, 1107 of 2007,950 of 2008 and 188 of 2009 decided on 10-06-2010
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Ahmad Butt for Petitioners. Farman Ullah Khattak and Waqar Ali DA-G for
Respondents.

MESSRS BANK ALFALAH LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER

VS

EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER AND 3 OTHERS

Law: Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962

Section: 5

Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)--S.5(c)---Cantonments Act (II of 1924), S.60---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.163, 199 & Fourth Sched. Part-I, Entry 48---Constitutional petition---Levy of professional tax by Provincial Government on banking Company housed in Cantonment area---Plea of Bank that its Head Offices located in other Provinces had paid such tax according to their paid up capital, thus, its Branch could not be subjected to such levy; that such levy was illegal as its Branch Office located in Cantonment area would not fall within domain of Provincial Government; and that such levy covered by Entry 48 of Fourth Sched. of the Constitution would not fall within competence of Provincial Government---Validity---Such tax could be levied on limited company, Mudariba, Mutual Fund and other corporate bodies having prescribed paid up capital or reserves in preceding years---Payment of such tax in one Province could not diminish or dilute its liability once Bank decided to expand its activity by entering into another Province---Powers of Cantonment Board to impose tax within scope of S. 60 of Cantonments Act, 1924 would not take any such business, trade, calling or employment carried in Cantonment area out side scope of Province or its Assembly---Such tax was not imposed on Cantonment, but on business carried therein by petitioner---In absence of any provision whether express or implied in any law for the time being in force, powers of Provincial Government to levy such tax on business carried in Cantonment area could not be restricted---Petitioner being a limited company, could not escape liability of such levy irrespective of fact whether its Head Offices were within or outside Province---Bank/Banking Companies could not be termed as "corporation" used in Entry 48 of Fourth Sched. of the Constitution---Impugned levy was legal---High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances. Province of Punjab and others v. Sargodha Textile Mills Ltd. and others PLD 2005 SC 988 and Fist Leasing Corporation Ltd. v. Government of N.-W.F.P. and others rendered in Writ Petition No.1965 of 1998 decided on 28-1-2009 rel. ORDER EJAZ AFZAL KHAN,…
🔒
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