6377/2014 Const. P. Continental Biscuit Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)

Sindh High Court2017

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)

Share on WhatsApp
6377/2014 Const. P. Continental Biscuit Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) Sindh High Court Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) Order Date: 23-FEB-17 The case of the petitioner precisely is that respondent No.2 (Cantonment Board Hyderabad) under the Cantonment Act, 1924, does not have the authority or power to charge any advertisement fee. Provisions of Cantonment Act 1924, Constitution of Pakistan 1973 were discussed. Sections 60 to 63 of the Cantonment Act 1924, were examined and it was observed that Cantonment may levy tax but such a power has a precondition, however in the said provisions the word fee is not appearing. It was remarked that when a parent statue [the Governing Law] does not empower the levy of fee, then levy of such a fee through a delegated legislation in the shape of Bye laws is not permissible. Moreover, Section 282(23) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 only empowers the Board to frame bye-laws to regulate the items mentioned in the relevant statutory provision/enabling enactment and does not empower them to levy a fee. It was further observed that the terms 'fee' and 'tax' are two distinct terms. Tax is a compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered whereas fee may be generally defined to be a charge for a special service rendered to individuals by some governmental agency or a Local Council under the principle of quid pro quo. It was opined that the imposition of advertisement fee by the respondents without adhering to the preconditions and without providing any corresponding service or facility and issuance of the recovery notices by the contractors were illegal and without jurisdiction. And the proceeding pending before the learned Cantonment Magistrate was quashed. The petition was accepted.
Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Red Notices against Foreign National Proclaimed Offender

PLJ 2024 Karachi 138 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2024

Judgment on Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act 2012

PLJ 2023 Karachi 124 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2023

Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013 explained in a Judgment

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022

Article 140- Cross Examination of a Witness

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020

Re-Examination is more important than Examination in Chief

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020