MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence S

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

MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence S. 80---Tax on annual rental value of immovable property---Non-payment---Effect---Tax imposed on immovable property, under S. 80 of Cantonments Act, 1924 runs on the property itself and not on the owner or occupier---As such it is a tax on immovable property and not a tax on a person's income. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence art. 270a---Interpretation of Constitution---Vires of laws---Principle---Supremacy of the Constitution has to be safeguarded---Laws which cannot withstand legislative competence must yield their way to Parliamentary and Constitutional supremacy, and laws after such scrutiny, if found transgressing such mandate, must be seen to have melted down to the frame of the Constitution---Laws made during the period mentioned in art. 270a of the Constitution, if found violative, must be eclipsed by the supreme law, i.e. the Constitution and it cannot be vice versa---Laws in derogation of such principle are ultra vires. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Ss. 60, 80 & 200---Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched., Part I, Entry 50 [as amended by Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution]---Federal Legislative List---Tax and fee---Distinction---Principle of quid pro quo---Applicability---Petitioners/owners of properties assailed tax demand based on annual rental value of their properties by respondents/ Cantonment Boards---Plea raised by respondent/Cantonment Boards was that they were charging fee under S. 200 of Cantonments Act, 1924---Validity---For imposition of any fee, services under the principle of quid pro quo must be specified in the exhaustive list provided under S. 200 of Cantonments Act, 1924---If a particular fee claimed for a service under the principle of quid pro quo is not provided for under S. 200 of Cantonments Act, 1924, such fee cannot be imposed---Provision of S. 200 of Cantonments Act, 1924 is meant for levying fee, and an exhaustive list of all those levies against which, by applying principle of quid pro quo, a fee could be levied---If any nature of service to claim fee was not mentioned therein then it could not be imposed by respondents/Cantonment Boards at all---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence art. 70(6) & Fourth Schedule, Part I, Entry No. 50---Federal Legislative List---"Taxes on land and buildings" and "taxes on capital value of assets"---Scope---Both type of taxes are separate subjects/entries---Prior one primarily belongs to Provincial Legislature and the later subject belongs to Federal Legislature. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Constitutionality of law---Principle---Constitutionality of any law, on the touchstone of any provision of the Constitution, being opposed, could always be challenged and only because such challenge had not been thrown earlier does not amount to an acquiescence and would not be immune from a challenge in future---In enforcing Constitutional frame work, the concept of acquiescence is an alien object. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Ss. 60, 80, 106 & 109---Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order (P.O. No. 13 of 1979), Art. 3---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 15A---Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched., Part I, Entry No. 50 [as amended by Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution]---Federal Legislative List---Property tax, recovery of---Jurisdiction of Cantonment Boards---Tax, utilization of---Petitioners/owners of properties assailed tax demand based on annual rental value of property by respondents/Cantonment Boards---Validity---Taxes on immovable properties had been excluded from the domain of the Federation, the Federal Legislature and consequently respondents/Cantonment Boards could not levy, impose, charge and/or recover such taxes as levied by it on immovable properties from the date of restoration of the Constitution and more particularly after Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, either under Cantonments Act, 1924 or under Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979---Such levy by respondents/Cantonment Boards had been initiated in terms of Cantonments Act, 1924---Laws on the basis of which respondents/ Cantonment Boards were recovering taxes opposed the Constitutional/ Legislative competence and was beyond their legal powers and capacity, which was ultra vires under existing frame of the Constitution on legislative competence---There is no special provision for a tax on annual rental value of immovable property to be utilized as an "expenditure" under Cantonments Act, 1924, thus general provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 cannot be applied---"Tax" per se on immovable property, under S. 15A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 can be utilized or adjusted as "expenditure"---This is a general provision for all levies on property and is not specific to any particular fee or tax and a direct nexus of subject tax can be a misapplication---Power to levy, charge, impose and recover any or all taxes separately on immovable property is an alien object under Cantonment laws in existing frame of the Constitution---Tax on annual rental value of immovable property was a tax and not a fee or any other genre of levy---Respondents/Cantonment Boards had no power to levy tax on immovable property including tax on annual rental value of immovable property---After revival of the Constitution, and Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, provisions of Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979 had no effect on the subject---Subject law to the extent of provision of S. 3 of Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979 was no longer protected---High Court declared that after Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Entry 50 in Fourth Schedule to the Constitution was amended, consequently Federation and all Cantonment Boards lacked competence, power and jurisdiction to levy, charge, impose and recover any or all taxes on any immovable property, including but not limited to tax on annual rental value of immovable property---High Court further declared that Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution consequently restored competence and jurisdiction of Province to levy, charge, recover and legislate on subject so identified and to pursue it accordingly---High Court directed that amounts so recovered by Cantonment Boards under subject of tax in question, since Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution also called for an account---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Ss. 60 & 80---Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order (P.O. No. 13 of 1979), Art. 3---Sindh Local Government Act (XLII of 2013), S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched., Part I, Entry No. 50 [as amended by Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution]---Federal Legislative List---Property tax, recovery of---Jurisdiction of Cantonment Boards---Petitioners/owners of properties assailed tax demand based on annual rental value of their properties by respondents/Cantonment Boards---Plea raised by respondent/Cantonment Boards was that annual rental value on immovable properties had devolved upon local Government hence Cantonment Boards as Local Government were also empowered for the same---Validity---Cantonment Boards were excluded under S. 14 of Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, therefore, no power to levy such tax could be derived by respondents/Cantonment Boards from such law, and no powers could be drawn from any Federal law as it was a provincial subject---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Fourth Sched., Part I, Entry No. 50---Levy of tax---Classification of properties according to their value---Principle---If classification is dependent upon improved facilities, it counts good but purpose could be achieved by one master/regulator i.e. the Province---If classification does not rest on good tests, then it is bound to collapse which creates discrimination and there should be one parameter/yardstick to evaluate---Different properties in an area/common area may have different values notwithstanding the area itself is classified as a category but within that category the value of property/building may vary, depending upon its characteristics to evaluate and measure rental value it may fetch, hence the fact that property situated in a particular local body/ municipality, itself should not form basis of classification---There should be one regulator to deal with evaluation with common tools of evaluations. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Ss. 106 & 109---Property tax---Cantonment Funds---Principle of quid pro quo---Applicability---Details provided under S. 109 of Cantonments Act, 1924 are neither specific nor exhaustive but rather general in nature---Principle of quid pro quo is applied when specific provision/facility as against such recovery of fee is made---Cantonment Boards have several other services which they are rendering and are also recovering amount which could have a specific purpose---Amount of tax on property recovered as a tax on annual rental value, cannot be equated to be meant for such a purpose---Purpose must be specific and must relate to a levy itself---There may not be a requirement of arithmetic precision but there must be a direct co-relation between them for applying quid pro quo.

MILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence S — 2025 PLD 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD