KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), Cantonment Board Clifton (CBC) and other respondents on a petition filed by some residents against an increase in property tax.

Petitioners Altaf Hussain Halli and 56 other residents of DHA and Clifton moved the SHC against a letter issued on Aug 23, 2022 by the assistant director general, military land & cantonments boards, Rawalpindi.

The petitioners alleged that through the impugned letter, an illegal exorbitant and arbitrarily assessed tax was imposed, which was nothing but extortion foisted upon them and other residents of DHA and CBC under the garb of house tax by misinterpreting some provisions of the Cantonment Act 1922 and Chapter V of Cantonment Act 1924.

They submitted that all kinds of taxes could only be levied by the act of parliament in terms of Article 77 of the Constitution and thus the letter in question was totally illegal and unconstitutional.

Sindh govt, not cantonment board, has jurisdiction to assess, levy property tax, petitioners tell SHC

After the issuance of the letter in question, a public notice was published in the media in October last year, inviting objections in terms of Section 66 of the law and the petitioners filed their objections and agitated the issue, they maintained.

Citing the DHA, CBC, military estate office, V Corps Commander, defence secretary, Sindh chief secretary, excise & taxation secretary and Cantonment Board Karachi as respondents, the petitioners argued that since there was no military establishment in DHA, the presence as well as jurisdiction of the CBC was totally illegal.

They also stated in terms of entry No.37 and 50 of Part I of Federal Legislative List the properties situated in a province are always subject to provincial legislation i.e. Sindh Immovable Property Tax; therefore, the Sindh government had jurisdiction to assess and levy the property tax.

The petitioners contended that there was nothing in the impugned letter to sustain the demand of house and conservancy tax.

They further submitted that the DHA and CBC had failed to provide any amenities and facilities to the petitioners and since the Karachi Water & Sewerage Board was providing water, there was no question of levying the conservancy tax.

They contended that since the procedure and law had not been followed in the case of petitioners as provided in different provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 the demand of inflated house tax and consequent thereto the water, sewerage and conservancy tax were uncalled and illegal.

The petitioner also argued that there was no concept of house and conservancy tax in the entire scheme of Cantonment Act, 1924 and that they were allegedly subjected to hostile discrimination in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution.

Petitioners’ counsel Saadat Yar Khan argued that his clients could not be subjected to levy of any tax including water, sewerage, conservancy and property tax “not limited to but in accordance with law”.

Questioning the jurisdiction of the CBC, the lawyer submitted that the land was seemingly acquired by the DHA from the government of Sindh at a throwaway price and sometime the same was obtained for defence purpose only.

The petitioners pleaded to declare the impugned letter and inflated property tax notices illegal and unlawful as well as to quash the unilaterally enhanced demand of house and water/conservancy tax in respect of the petitioners’ properties.

They also asked the court to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioners including causing disruption of water supply and amenity services.

After a preliminary hearing, a two-judge bench, headed by Justice Junaid Ghaffar, put the respondents on notice with a direction to file comments by Sept 6.

Published in Dawn, August 24th, 2023