Summary: The dispute revolved around the medical officer, who was assessed for property tax related to a number of shops within the jurisdiction of the Excise & Taxation Office in Peshawar. Allegedly in default of the assessed amount, the petitioners executed a non-bailable warrant of arrest, claiming it was issued by a competent authority. The medical officer was taken into custody on a specific date and time while he was present at a particular location. This led to a series of events where he alleged mistreatment, wrongful confinement, and eventual release through the intervention of advocates.The medical officer sought a criminal case against the excise officials, but his request was declined. He filed a petition under a specific section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was initially declined by a Justice of Peace. Subsequently, a Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High Court issued an order directing the registration of a criminal case. This order was contested in the present petition.During the hearing, the petitioners argued that their actions were in compliance with the law and were intended to collect public revenue as per the command of law. They contended that the execution of the warrant fell within the legal framework and cited statutory immunity for their actions. The petitioners also claimed that the medical officer had not made any payment, justifying their pursuit of the defaulted amount.The respondent's defense was that the petitioners had abused their authority and acted improperly, leading to a violation of the medical officer's rights as a professional. The respondent contended that the actions of the petitioners were in breach of the law and the Constitution, warranting criminal proceedings.The court emphasized the importance of exercising state authority within the boundaries of the law and ensuring the rights and dignity of individuals. The court acknowledged that state functionaries must perform their duties with restraint and independence. It noted that despite differing viewpoints, the issuance of multiple notices for the recovery of property tax indicated the necessity of addressing factual controversies through alternate statutory remedies.Ultimately, the court converted the petition into an appeal, setting aside the impugned direction/order issued by the Peshawar High Court. The medical officer was granted the liberty to challenge the assessment's legality through proper legal channels and to pursue alternate remedies if advised.

Summary: The exception created through Article 165-A of the constitution after the SITE judgment referred above, it appears that only the State established instrumentality is liable to pay all the taxes on its income whereas the exemption provided by Article 165 of the Constitution to the Federal as well as Provincial Government from payment of property tax shall also be available to its instrumentalities inview of the law laid down by the Apex court in SITE Judgment.It can, therefore, be seen from the aforesaid judgments that for the Court(s) to make use of the doctrine of lifting the veil of incorporation, there must exist justifiable reasons to ascertain the real ownership and control of a corporation for the purpose of Article 165 of the Constitution. Moreover, a corporation or instrumentality of the Federal Government having a monopoly in the area of its operation being solely performing sovereign functions of the state , will be deemed a department of the Government and hence entitled to the exemption under Article 165 of the Constitution from payment of property tax. Similarly, the Court(s) would resort to the doctrine of lifting the veil of incorporation in the cases where a corporation whose entire shareholding is owned by Federal Government whereas a corporation which is not wholly owned by the Federal Government and part of the shareholding vests in other entities and persons as well, will not be extended the benefit of Article 165 of the Constitution. The Court(s) have extended the benefit of Article 165 of the Constitution toproperty owned directly by the Federal Government but the said benefit has also been extended to properties owned by the Federal Government through its instrumentalities and body corporates, however, a Government Corporation conducting commercial activities in the normal course of business and competing with similar entities has not been given the benefit of Article 165 for seeking exemption from property tax. It must, however, be noted that The Associated Cement case (supra), has set the tone for future jurisprudence, therefore, principles laid down in it must be considered carefully in respect of the applicability of the exemption under Article 165 of the Constitution toinstrumentalities and corporations claiming to be owned by the Federal Government.

Summary: Background:Interpretation of tax exemption under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 (the "Act") for Market Committees.---Issues:Whether Market Committees are exempt from property tax under the Act, particularly after an amendment in 2002.Whether the petitioners had the right to appeal directly to the Supreme Court without exhausting other avenues of appeal.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that:Market Committees were exempt from property tax under the Act before the amendment in 2002, as established in the case of Province of Punjab v. Market Committee (2011 SCMR 1856).However, after the amendment, Market Committees were no longer classified as "local authorities" eligible for exemption.The amendment restricted the exemption to properties owned by the Government of Punjab or local governments defined under the Local Governments Ordinance, 2001.As Market Committees did not fall under either category, they were liable to pay property tax under the Act after the amendment in 2002.The Court rejected the argument that the petitioners should have pursued an intra-court appeal, citing section 10 of the Act which provides for an appeal before the authority in case of inclusion of names wrongly in the valuation list.Consequently, the petitions were converted into appeals and partially allowed.---Citations/Precedents:Province of Punjab v. Market Committee (2011 SCMR 1856)Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958Punjab Finance Ordinance, 2002Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972---Quote:Market committees enjoy exemption from tax under the unamended section 4(b)(ii) of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 (the Act). However, after the amendment in section 4(b) of the Act brought about through Punjab Finance Ordinance, 2002, market committees are liable to pay tax under the Act.

Summary: Background:The case involves a dispute over the liability of tax under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 ("Act") by the Market Committees. The respondents, Market Committees, contested the tax demands raised by the petitioners, the Department, both before and after the amendment of the Act in 2002. The contention of the respondents was based on their exemption from tax as a "Market Committee" under section 4(b)(ii) of the Act. The petitioners, however, argued that the exemption was no longer applicable post the 2002 amendment to section 4.---Issues:Whether Market Committees are exempt from tax liability under section 4(b)(ii) of the Act both before and after the 2002 amendment?Whether the petitioners were required to file an intra-court appeal before the High Court instead of approaching the current court directly?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act both before and after the 2002 amendment. Before the amendment, section 4(b)(ii) provided exemption to properties owned or administered by a local authority and used exclusively for public purposes. This exemption was confirmed in the precedent set by Province of Punjab v. Market Committee (2011 SCMR 1856). However, after the 2002 amendment, the exemption was restricted to properties owned and administered by the Government of Punjab or a local government as per the Local Governments Ordinance, 2001. Market Committees did not fall within the scope of this amendment, therefore, rendering them liable for tax post-amendment.The court also addressed the procedural argument raised by the respondents regarding the filing of intra-court appeals. It was held that according to section 10 of the Act, an appeal before the authority was permissible especially in cases where the name of the respondents was incorrectly included in the valuation list for tax collection purposes. Consequently, the court partially allowed both petitions, converting them into appeals.---Citations/Precedents:Province of Punjab v. Market Committee (2011 SCMR 1856)Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958Punjab Finance Ordinance, 2002Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972---Quote:Market committees enjoy exemption from tax under the unamended section 4(b)(ii) of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 (?the Act?). However, after the amendment in section 4(b) of the Act brought about through Punjab Finance Ordinance, 2002, market committees are liable to pay tax under the Act.

Summary: Background:The appellant, Liaquat National Hospital, is a hospital registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, claiming exemption from property tax under Section 440 of the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 ("the Act"). Initially, the Property Tax Department issued an exemption certificate, but later refused it, leading to litigation. The matter was remanded to the Department for re-examination. Subsequently, the Department concluded that the appellant was not entitled to exemption under Section 4(f) of the Act.----Issues:Whether the appellant, a hospital, qualifies for exemption from property tax under Section 4(f) of the Act.Whether the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's constitutional petition seeking exemption was justified.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, comprising MR. JUSTICE H. AZMAT SAEED, MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB, and MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN, deliberated on the matter. It was noted that the appellant argued that despite charging fees for healthcare services, it operated on a non-profit basis, reinvesting all income back into the hospital. The appellant contended that such institutions should qualify for exemption under the Act.Upon examination of the relevant provisions of the Act, including Section 4(f) and Rule 24, the Court observed that charitable institutions, including hospitals, may qualify for exemption subject to prescribed conditions. However, the Court noted that while the appellant provided services at subsidized rates, it still charged fees, raising questions about its qualification as a charitable institution under the Act.The Court further considered the appellant's argument regarding the distinction between for-profit and non-profit hospitals but concluded that specific exemption provisions for hospitals were omitted from the Act. Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, denying the appellant's claim for exemption from property tax.---Citations/Precedents:Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958Societies Registration Act, 1860---Quote:Profits of an organization if not distributed amongst the members/shareholders does not by itself establish that it is a charitable organization and therefore exempted from property tax under section 4 of the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958.

Summary: during the proceedings, another show cause notice under Section 16 of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 was produced, claiming an amount of Rs. 356,944,90 as arrears.Expo Lahore (Private) Limited is a company jointly owned by the Federal Government and the Government of Punjab, with the Federal Government owning approximately 98% of the shares and the Punjab Government owning 2%. The company's purpose is to provide export-oriented companies with facilities to promote their products and services.The primary argument in the case revolved around whether the building owned by Expo was considered property of the Federal Government and thus exempt from property tax. The Lahore Development Authority (LDA) had leased the land to the Punjab Government, which then sub-leased it to Expo for the construction of the Expo Centre.The Lahore High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Expo, stating that the building in question was indeed owned by the Federal Government. The Court found that Expo served an important national purpose by promoting exports and engaged in activities outlined in its memorandum of association. It also highlighted various factors, including the composition of Expo's Board of Directors and funding, which indicated that Expo was effectively an instrumentality of the Federal Government. Therefore, it was exempt from property tax as per Section 4(a) of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958.The judgment concluded by striking down the notices issued by the Excise & Taxation Department for property tax payment by Expo.

Summary: Provisions of Limitation Act are made applicable on toto by virtue of Section 167 of land Revenue Act, 1976

Summary: The Creation and variation of limits of a district is government under section 6 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1987.

Summary: Due process is mandatory to levy or recovery of Property Tax from the taxpayer under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 and Rules thereto.

Summary: S. 117 W.P Land Revenue Act, 1967.Power and jurisdiction of Revenue Officer, in area of PATA, where settlement operation is not complete. A Revenue Officer, can demarcate the land, even if, the settlement operation not initiated for a specific area, but where the Land Revenue Act is enforced.