 |
| 2025 clc 1961 |
جنرل پاور آف اٹارنی پر CVT کی عدم ادائیگی فَردِ ملکیت روکنے کی بنیاد نہیں
مقدمہ کا پس منظر
عدالت کے سامنے قانونی سوال
ہائیکورٹ کا قانونی تجزیہ
سی وی ٹی کی وصولی کا طریقہ
Must read judgment.
2025 CLC 1961
[Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)]
Before Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J
GHAZANFAR AMIN-Petitioner
Versus
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others-Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7027 of 2022, heard on 26th October, 2023.
Punjab Finance Act (XLI of 2012)--
Ss. 6(3) & 6(17)-Capital Value Tax on immovable property-General power of attorney-Principle "noscitur a sociis-Petitioner was aggrieved of refusal of revenue authorities from issuing Fard Malkiat (revenue record) on the plea that Capital Value Tax ('CVT) had not been paid on on general power of attorney issued in his favour-Validity--Legislature in S. 6(3) of Punjab Finance Act, 2012 talked about acquisition of immovable property and had used term "power of attorney" alongside other methods such as purchase, gift, exchange, surrender, relinquishment and lease-By applying principle of "noscitur a sociis, it could he inferred that the Legislature intended to impose CVT specifically on a general power of attorney when an individual had acquired immovable property through it and not otherwise-Transfer of ownership for immovable property involves a registered instrument, as mandated by Registration Act, 1908--Such instrument needs registration with Registrar of Documents, requiring payment of stamp duty under Stamp Act, 1899 and a registration fee This is a straightforward process I process but an alternative method has ative method has emerged in recent years, moving away from the Registrar of Documents-This alternative facilitates private property transfers using documents like transfer letters, agreements to sell and power of attorneys--Provision of S. 6(17) of Punjab Finance Act, 2012 mandates that if CVT is not collected from the person liable to pay it, the outstanding amount may be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue following the procedure outlined in Land Punjab Revenue Act, 1967--Sub-Registrar was not empowered to prohibit issuance of Fard Malkiat to property owner without an injunctive order or attachment order by a Court or competent authority---High Court set aside the order of Sub-Registrar prohibiting ist issuance of Fard Malkiat to petitioner, as the same was without lawful authority authority-Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
ex parte Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 458; ex parte Official Receiver (1887) 19 QB 174; Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust and another PLD 1969 SC 223; Hafiz Hamdullah v. Saifullah Khan and others PLD 2007 SC 52: Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore Range and others PLD 1978 SC 151; Fazal Karim, Judicial Review of Public Actions, Second Edition, Vol. 3, p. 1474; Sub-Registrar (Rural), Tehsil and District Rawalpindi and others v. Muhammad Ilyas C.P. No. 2926 of 2016; Bisvil Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs Circle, Sheikhupura and another PLD 1988 SC 370; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. 2009 PTD 1392; N.S. Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edition, p. 316; Khan Bahadur Amiruddin v. West Punjab Province PLD 1956 FC 220: Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty PLD 1961 SC 119; State of Bombay and others v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and others AIR 1960 SC 610; Abdul Hameed v. Province of Punjab and others 2022 CLC 1083 and Pak Gulf Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2020 SCMR 146 rel.
A.R. Aurangzeb for Petitioner.
Hafiza Mehnaz Nadeem Abbasi, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Ch. Muhammad Azhar for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
Mehmood Ahmad Bhatti for Respondent No. 6.
Sher Hassan Pervez, Research Officer, LHCRC.