LAHORE(National Times)- The Lahore High Court (LHC) has upheld the validity of actions taken by the Punjab Revenue Authority (PRA) and dismissed over 200 intra-court appeals (ICAs) challenging the authority of the provincial tax body.
A division bench comprising Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh and Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains passed a 40-page judgment, dismissing the appeals filed by Nishat Hotel and Properties Limited and other private concerns.
The appellants had challenged the constitutional validity of amendments introduced in the Punjab Revenue Authority Act, arguing that the authority was never lawfully established or constituted.
Therefore, they said, all its actions, including tax collection, notices, assessments and recoveries, were without lawful authority.
The legal dispute started after an earlier LHC judgment in a 2016 case of “Institute of Architects, Pakistan (Lahore Chapter) versus Province of Punjab” had held that the PRA was neither validly established nor lawfully constituted under the law.
The court had declared the actions, decisions and rules framed by the authority without lawful effect.
The Punjab government subsequently introduced validating amendments in the PRA Act through the Punjab Revenue Authority (Amendment) Acts of 2016 to cure the defects pointed out by the court and protect past actions taken by the authority.
The present appellants argued before the LHC that the amendments could not retrospectively validate illegal actions and that the provincial legislature had attempted to override judicial decisions without removing the foundational defects.
They contended that the authority remained improperly constituted and that notices and proceedings issued by it were invalid.
However, the division bench rejected these arguments and held that the provincial legislature had the competence to enact validating laws regarding matters falling within its legislative domain, including sales tax on services.
Justice Sheikh, who authored the judgment, observed that a legislature can retrospectively validate laws and executive actions if it removes the defects or legal basis on which such actions were earlier declared invalid.
A validating statute, the judge said, cannot merely declare an invalid action valid, but must cure the defect identified by the court.
The judge held that the defect regarding the non-establishment of the PRA stood cured through Section 36(c) of the PRA Act, inserted through the Second Amendment Act, whereby the authority was deemed to have been established from July 1, 2012.
The judge ruled that once the legislature created a legal fiction establishing the authority retrospectively, a separate administrative notification was no longer required.
The division bench also examined the issue of the authority’s composition as the earlier judgment had questioned the appointment of its members, particularly ex-officio members, due to the absence of enabling provisions.
Justice Sheikh observed that the defect was removed through amendments and after the appointment of the chairperson and members, the PRA stood duly constituted from June 15, 2015, in accordance with the statutory requirement.
The bench further ruled that even if there were irregularities in the appointment process, the acts performed by public officials acting under the colour of lawful authority were protected under the “de facto doctrine”.
The doctrine, the judge explained, exists to maintain continuity in public administration and prevent disruption of public affairs due to technical defects in appointments or constitution of authorities.
The bench also rejected another argument that the amendments violated constitutional protections, holding that the legislature had not validated appointments themselves but had validated actions, proceedings and recoveries undertaken by the authority.
The bench dismissed 230 ICAs, upholding the single bench’s judgement and the PRA’s past actions, including tax collection and related proceedings.
