Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2808 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case M/s R-SC Internet Services pakistan (Pvt.)

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2808 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case M/s R-SC Internet Services pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. VS Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ss.2 (ff) & 42, Third Schedule, Item No. 11---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 23--- Notification No. 4284-87/IMO/TMA/T-1/2019 dated 27.05.2019---Delivery publicity with logo embossed on the helmet, jackets or motorcycle and other vehicles of the companies involved in "delivery services"---Publicity tax, imposition of---Scope---Provincial/Local Government, powers of---Quid-pro-quo for imposing fee/tax---Scope---Petitioners/Companies were providing services like Cable TV or food delivery through riders vehicles, which (vehicles) were identified through stickers/branding/logo of the petitioners---Petitioners challenged the collection of fee on their official vehicles which were being used by their employees in furtherance of their economic activities---Contention of the petitioners was that despite the fact that their vehicles were not involved in any activities relating to the advertisement of the company, the respondents /Local Government through their contractor were stopping their vehicles/vans and demanding advertisement fee which was illegal---Case of the respondents (Local Government etc.) was that the riders of petitioners/companies, admittedly, used specific logo/trademark and wore jackets of their specific colour, therefore, all such measures amounted to marketing and advertisement of their business, hence were liable to pay advertisement tax/fee---Validity---Section 42 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013, ('the Act 2013') authorizes any Local Government to levy all or any of the taxes and levies specified in Third Schedule, however, the said imposition of levy is subject to previous publication of tax proposal inviting and hearing public objections and approval of the respective Local Council---Though the respondents had produced the Notification dated 27.05.2019 wherein through, item No.11 of third schedule fee/tax had been notified against delivery publicity through Motorcycle, Auto Rickshaw, four wheel vehicles and six wheel vehicles, however, they (respondents) could not produce any document that the said approval was made in a manner as provided under S.42 of the Act 2013---Similarly, the respondents could not identify any specific subject/object as provided in Third Schedule under which said fee/tax had been levied, while under Item No.11 (of Third Schedule) the Local Government was competent to levy any fee on all types of advertisement including billboard other than on radio and television---Even if the said Notification was assumed to be issued after complying with the provision of S.42 of the Act 2013 the respondents still had to exhibit that there was a quid-pro-quo for the said fee---Term "tax" has been defined in S.2(ff) of the Act 2013 to include any cess, fee, rate, toll or other charges leviable under the Act 2013---Tax is a compulsory exaction of money by public Authority for public purpose enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered, whereas fee is generally understood to be a charge for a special service rendered to individuals by some Government Agencies or Local Council--- However, to charge fee the element of quid-pro-quo must be evident from record---In the present case, the respondents had wrongly assumed that the logo which was embossed on the helmet, jackets or motorcycle and other vehicles of the petitioners involved in the "delivery services" was for the purpose of publicity---Said logo, prima facie, appeared to identify the vehicle/motorcycle carrying specific services on behalf of a particular company/service provider, though it might have the effect of publicity, however, in that regard the respondents could not establish that what was the quid-pro-quo for the said services---On ambiguous assertions money cannot be extracted from the public as the same would offend Art. 23 of the Constitution---High Court was not persuaded by the respondents that the imposition of the impugned fee had either a quid-pro-quo or the respondents had any legal mandate to collect the said fee from the petitioners in the garb of Notification dated 27.05.2019---Since, the vires of Notification dated 27.05.2019 was not before the High Court, therefore, any opinion regarding its legality could not be expressed, however, the demand of the impugned fee in the garb of the said Notification was not legally valid---Constitutional petitions, filed by service providing companies, were disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2808 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case M/s R-SC Internet Services pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ss — 2024 YLR 2808 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR