1989 CLC 1397
CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COUNCIL, RAHIM YAR KHAN
UNITED BANK LIMITED
Per Muhammad Sharif, J.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Articles 161 & 165 —
Banks (Nationalization) Act (XIX of 1974), Section 5 — Leaving of professional tax by District Council — Federal Government exempted from liability of taxation under any Act of Provincial Assembly — As the ownership, management and control of Banks vests in Federal Government fom 1.1.1974, professional tax levied by the Act of Provincial Assembly under Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), could not be levied on the banks which have been nationalized — Exemption clause as embodied under article 165 of the Constitution positively applied in the case of nationalized banks, 1986 PTD (Trib) 873; Lahore PLD 1974 Note 9 at page 39;
Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd., Karachi v. Central Board of Revenue and 3 others PLD 1975 Karachi 128 and Central Board of Revenue and another v. S.I.T.E. PLD 1985 SC 97. Ref.
Articles 165 & 165A — [as added by the Constitution (Amendment) Order (II of 1985) — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Section 115 — Scope and import of Articles 165 & 165A of the Constitution — Provisions of Article 165A declare the power of Parliament to legislate law for the recovery of tax even from the institution owned or controlled, either directly or indirectly, by the Federal Government or Provincial Government — Provisions of Article 165A do not come in conflict with Article 165 of the Constitution because exemption has been granted from the liability of taxes to the Federal Government, when the tax is imposed by the Provincial Government — Exemption clause contained in Article 165 has thus safely been extended to the levying of tax by the District Council on banks being managed and controlled by the Federal Government — Lower Courts having not committed any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction by declaring imposition of professional tax on nationalized banks by a Provincial Act as illegal such finding did not call for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of High Court.