ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI.

CP No.D-489/2010.

Date Order with Signature of Judge
  1. For Orders on Misc. No.1954/2010.
  2. = = = 1955/2010.
  3. For Katcha Peshi.
  4. For Orders on Misc. No.1956/2010.

------

24.02.2010.

Mr. Arshad M. Tayebali, Advocate for the Petitioner.

-------------

  1. Allowed.

    2.  

  2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

 

 

3-4) Learned Counsel says that the Petitioner has purchased two Properties through its Directors/Share Holders on 13.07.2009, which were valued respectively in the amounts of Rs.9,500,000/= & Rs.16,200,000/= and has paid the requisite stamp duty as well as Capital Value Tax (CVT) calculated 4% of the purchase/transfer price, such CVT was calculated in accordance with the recorded value per the requirement of Section 7(2)(C.A) of the Finance Act, 1989, by which, for the first time, has imposed the CVT in the Country. Now, however, the Revenue Authorities per the impugned Letter of Demand are calculating the CVT not only on the recorded value but at Rs.100/= per sq. ft of the landed area which cannot be substantiated at all per requirement of the Law as settled above. According to the Revenue Authorities the CVT on this transaction comes Rs.29,779,000/=, which is more than the value of the land as declared by the Petitioner and the Seller.

In the circumstances of the case, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for notice and also that in the meanwhile the impugned Demand Notice be stayed.

We have heard Learned Counsel and gone through the Petition as well as law settled above. Ex-facie, we are of the view perhaps the valuation placed upon the transaction by the Revenue Authorities is unfounded since either it could be at 4% of the recorded value or whether the value of the property has not recorded then at Rs.100/= per sq. ft. of the landed area. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the recorded value would mean the transactional value of the property as agreed to between the Parties on which the CVT has already been paid. Consequently, we would, in the first instance, issue Pre-Admission Notice to the Learned DAG as well as the Respondents for 11.03.2010. In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned Demand Notice is suspended.

 

Chief Justice

Judge