| Case ID |
0bd5c74e-38d0-4f50-bb41-7232a58938a9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Constitutional Petition No. D-77 of 2021 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 18, 2021 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 18, 2021 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the constitutional petition filed by Telenor Microfinance Bank Limited, which challenged a demand notice for property and conservancy tax issued by the Cantonment Board Clifton. The court found that under Section 65 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, the tax could be levied on the actual occupier of the property, which in this case was the petitioner as a tenant. The court noted that the petitioner had not established a case for extraordinary writ jurisdiction and upheld the applicability of the statutory provisions regarding tax liability. The court emphasized the binding nature of prior judgments on similar matters, concluding that the petitioner could seek reimbursement from the landlord for any amounts paid, but the petition itself was dismissed. |
| Summary |
In this pivotal case, Telenor Microfinance Bank Limited challenged a demand notice for property and conservancy tax issued by the Cantonment Board Clifton. The core legal question revolved around the applicability of Section 65 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, which stipulates that taxes can be levied on the actual occupier of the property. The Sindh High Court, through Justices Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Agha Faisal, meticulously examined the arguments presented by the bank's counsel, who contended that since the bank had paid rent in advance, recovering dues from them would be challenging. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to establish a compelling case for extraordinary writ jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petition. This case underscores the importance of understanding tenant rights and tax obligations under the law, particularly in relation to the Cantonments Act. The decision reinforces the principle that earlier judgments by Division Benches of the High Court are binding on subsequent equal benches, which is crucial for maintaining legal consistency. The ruling serves as a significant reference for future cases involving tenant rights and tax recovery processes, highlighting the intricate balance between statutory obligations and the rights of tenants. Legal practitioners and entities in the finance sector must closely observe precedents set in cases like this to navigate similar legal challenges effectively. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Cantonment Board Clifton,
TELENOR MICROFINANCE BANK LIMITED
|
| Judges |
Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar,
Agha Faisal
|
| Lawyers |
Faiz Ahmed for Petitioner,
Akhtar Hussain Shaikh for Respondents,
Muhammad Ahmer, Assistant Attorney General for Respondents
|
| Petitioners |
TELENOR MICROFINANCE BANK LIMITED through Authorized Representative
|
| Respondents |
2 others,
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence
|
| Citations |
2023 SLD 2281,
2023 YLR 1938
|
| Other Citations |
Asad Sajjad v. Cantonment Clifton Board and another (C.P. D-12 of 2010 and C.P. D-2684 of 2009),
Muhammad Asif Khan v. Cantonment Board Faisal and another (C.P. D-2178 of 2010),
Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others 1995 SCMR 362,
Abdul Rauf Nizamani v. ECP and others 2020 CLC 2063
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
199,
201
|