Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Dr. Yasin Zia vs Govt. of Punjab etc.2015 LHC 4678 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-02Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahida Husnain vs Mian Umar lkram-ul-Haq and others2015 LHC 4004, 2015 KLR Civil Cases 466 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahida Husnain vs Mian Umar Ikram ul Haq & others2015 LHC 4004 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
• DR. Rab Nawaz Malik vs Province of Punjab, Etc.s2015 NLR Service 153 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-29Read full judgment →
• DR. Rab Nawaz Malik vs Province of Punjab, etc2015 PLJ Lahore 375 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rab Nawaz Malik vs Province of Punjab and others2015 NLR Service 153, 2015 PLJ Lahore 375, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 411 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-29
  ad hoc appointmentacting charge basisvested rightservice lawstop-gap arrangementdepartmental promotion committeewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's ad hoc appointment as a Senior Registrar Surgery (BS-18) at Nishtar Hospital, Multan, and the subsequent appointment of respondent No. 5 to that position on an acting charge basis following a Departmental Promotion Committee recommendation. The core legal question was whether an ad hoc appointee possesses a vested right to retain their position against a candidate promoted through the regular departmental process. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an ad hoc appointment is merely a stop-gap arrangement that confers no permanent right to the post, especially when a regular incumbent or a promotee becomes available. The Court distinguished between ad hoc appointments and promotions on an acting charge basis, noting that the latter carries a wider connotation and constitutes a regular appointment. The key principle laid down is that an ad hoc employee has no vested right to hold a post beyond their appointment period or to claim continuity against a candidate duly promoted by a competent authority, as the ad hoc arrangement is inherently temporary.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ad hoc appointment confer a vested right to the incumbent to retain the post indefinitely?
  • Is there a legal distinction between an ad hoc appointment and an appointment on an acting charge basis?
  • Can an ad hoc employee claim a right to be retained in service against a candidate promoted by a Departmental Promotion Committee?
  • Does the continuation of an ad hoc appointment for a significant period create a legitimate expectancy of regular employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nasir Ali Malik vs The State and another2015 YLR 2219 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-09
  post-arrest bailmisappropriationrule of consistencycriminal breach of trustentrustment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Dr. Nasir Ali Malik seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 05/2011 dated 9-7-2011 registered under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 at Police Station ACE, District Mianwali, relating to the alleged misappropriation of medicines during his tenure as District Officer Health. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on merits and on the basis of the rule of consistency, given that co-accused facing similar allegations have already been enlarged on bail and that the prosecution has not shown direct entrustment of medicines to him. The court held that since co-accused with identical roles had been granted bail and the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation, he was entitled to the same relief. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency dictates that an accused person whose role is at par with co-accused already released on bail ought similarly to be admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the basis of the rule of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have already been enlarged on bail?
  • Whether the absence of material evidence regarding the entrustment of property to a public servant warrants the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the completion of investigation and the fact that an accused is no longer required for further investigation support the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Munir Ahmad Rashid, Senior Registrar CH. Pervaiz Elahi Institute of Cardiology, Multan vs Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab,Lahore and 4 others2015 PLJ Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-30
  writ jurisdictionservice matteradhoc appointmenteligibility criteriaPunjab Service Tribunalconstitutional petitionpublic service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the ad-hoc appointment of Respondent No. 5 as an Assistant Professor of Cardiology (BS-18) by the Health Department, Government of the Punjab. The petitioner alleged that he possessed superior qualifications and experience compared to the appointee, arguing that the selection process was flawed and the appointee failed to meet the required criteria. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere in the selection process of public functionaries under its writ jurisdiction when factual disputes regarding eligibility and qualifications exist. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as the determination of eligibility and selection criteria falls within the domain of the relevant authorities and the Selection Committee. Furthermore, the Court noted that such service-related matters are barred from its jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution and the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. However, the Court emphasized the duty of the respondents to fill posts through the Punjab Public Service Commission, directing them to initiate a regular selection process within three months to avoid future controversies.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in the selection process of public functionaries under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 when factual disputes regarding eligibility exist?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate service-related matters involving the appointment of public servants?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against the selection of a candidate by a duly constituted Selection Committee?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Sharif vs Government of Punjab, Etc.2015 LHC 2687 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-22
  disciplinary proceedingsretired civil servantretrospective applicationPEEDAshow cause noticeservice disciplinestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired civil servant, challenged a show cause notice issued under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA) regarding allegations of inefficiency, misconduct, and corruption. The petitioner contended that as he had retired prior to the promulgation of PEEDA, the Act could not be applied retrospectively to his case. The core legal questions were whether disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against a civil servant post-retirement and whether PEEDA applies to conduct occurring before its enactment. The Court held that the proceedings were lawful, noting that Section 1(4)(iii) of PEEDA explicitly allows for proceedings against retired employees provided they are initiated within one year of retirement. The Court determined that the legislature intended for PEEDA to apply to conduct occurring prior to its enforcement, provided the initiation of proceedings falls within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the authority acted within its legal parameters by issuing the notice within the one-year limitation period following the petitioner's retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a civil servant under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 after their retirement?
  • Does the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 apply to conduct or allegations occurring prior to its promulgation?
  • What is the time limitation for initiating disciplinary proceedings against a retired civil servant under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Aslam vs The State and another2015 YLR 397 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-12
  post-arrest bailincitement to violencefreedom of expressionprohibitory clausesectarian hatredcriminal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Dr. Muhammad Aslam, who was charged with possessing and disseminating inflammatory, sectarian, and anti-state literature at his clinic. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner propagated hatred against the Pakistan Armed Forces and incited youth toward militancy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. The Lahore High Court held that while the allegations were serious, the prosecution failed to provide cogent and believable evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged intent to incite violence or sectarian hatred. The Court observed that the mere possession of books, without clear evidence of criminal intent, did not justify continued incarceration, especially since the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute. The Court affirmed that the gravity of an offence alone is insufficient for denial of bail without supporting evidence. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued detention was unnecessary for the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of literature alleged to be inflammatory constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Is the gravity of an offence sufficient to deny bail in the absence of cogent evidence?
  • When does an offence fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Afzal Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 5 others2015 PLJ Lahore 999, 2015 CLC 1546 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-02
  ejectmentrelationship of landlord and tenantregistered rent deedcooperative society dissolutionabatement of suitsdisputed titleRent Tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition and connected petitions challenged the orders of the Rent Tribunal and the Additional District Judge ordering the ejectment of the petitioners from commercial properties previously owned by an undesirable cooperative society. The core legal question concerned whether ejectment petitions filed by persons claiming title through a questionable and challenged decree passed against a dissolved cooperative society were maintainable, and whether the relationship of landlord and tenant was legally established. The Lahore High Court held that the initial civil suit resulting in the decree relied upon by the landlords was a nullity under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Ordinance, 1992, as pending proceedings stood abated and decrees against such societies required confirmation by the Co-operatives Judge. Furthermore, the Court held that the landlords failed to establish a valid relationship of landlord and tenant or possess a registered tenancy deed as mandated by the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. The ratio decidendi is that a landlord who lacks clear title and a registered rent deed cannot maintain ejectment proceedings before a Rent Tribunal. The Court set aside the impugned eviction orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit against a dissolved undesirable cooperative society abate upon the appointment of a liquidator?
  • Can a Rent Tribunal entertain an ejectment petition in the absence of a tenancy deed registered with the Rent Registrar?
  • What is the proper course for a Rent Controller when a landlord fails to establish title and the relationship of landlord and tenant beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Are decrees passed against an undesirable cooperative society without the confirmation of the Co-operatives Judge of any legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Afzal Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Lahore & 52015 PLJ Lahore 999 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Masood ur Rauf vs University of the Punjab etc2015 LHC 6253 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-02
  writ jurisdictionprobationer terminationnon-statutory rulesalternate remedyUniversity of the Punjabservice mattershow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the termination of the petitioner’s services as a Senior Medical Officer (Dental) by the Vice Chancellor of the University of the Punjab. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the writ petition given the non-statutory nature of the University’s service rules, the competence of the Vice Chancellor to terminate the petitioner, and the necessity of a regular inquiry or show-cause notice for a probationer. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because the University’s service rules are non-statutory and the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedies of appeal and revision. The Court further held that terminating a probationer for unsatisfactory performance does not require a show-cause notice or formal inquiry, as such termination does not constitute dismissal for misconduct. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory appellate remedies, and an authority empowered to appoint an individual inherently possesses the power to proceed against them under relevant service provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against the termination of a university employee governed by non-statutory service rules?
  • Does the termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory performance require a show-cause notice or a regular inquiry?
  • Can a petitioner invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 when statutory remedies of appeal and revision are available?
  • Does the power to appoint an employee inherently include the power to proceed against that employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Khalil Ur Rehman vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab and 5 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 793 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-24
  constitutional petitionwrit of quo warrantoappointment challengeservice mattereligibility criteriaselection board recommendationclean hands doctrine
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, filed by an Associate Professor of Pathology, challenged the appointment of respondent No. 6 as Professor of Pathology at Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, on the grounds of alleged ineligibility and lack of requisite qualifications. The core legal questions involved the eligibility of respondent No. 6 based on her academic credentials, the maintainability of a writ of quo warranto by an unsuccessful candidate, and the extent to which a court can substitute its opinion for that of a professional selection board and regulatory body. The Lahore High Court held that the petition was without merit, finding that respondent No. 6 possessed verified valid qualifications recognized by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) and the University of the Punjab, and was recommended on merit by the Special Selection Board. The Court also held that an interested unsuccessful candidate who comes with unclean hands by leveling reckless, baseless allegations cannot maintain a writ of quo warranto, and a court will not substitute its opinion for that of a specialized selection body in the absence of mala fides, bias, or apparent error of judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unsuccessful candidate who competed for a post can maintain a writ of quo warranto to challenge the appointment of a successful candidate?
  • Can a High Court substitute its own opinion for the recommendation of a professional selection board or regulatory authority in service matters without proof of mala fide, bias, or error of judgment?
  • Does the leveling of reckless and baseless allegations against a respondent disentitle a petitioner from seeking discretionary and equitable constitutional relief?
  • Whether the eligibility and qualifications verified by a regulatory authority like the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council can be disregarded without tangible contrary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ijaz Ahmed vs Additional District Judge, etc2015 C.L.R. 20 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ijaz Ahmed vs Additional District Judge and others2015 YLR 129 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hammad Raza Khan vs Syed Shah Hussain etc2015 LHC 8259 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Faiz Rasool etc. vs Askari Bank Limited2015 PLJ Lahore 500 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
• Dr. Faiz Rasool and otherss vs The Askari Bank Limited through Branch2015 PLJ Lahore 500, 2015 CLD 1710 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-05
  Diminishing Musharikarecovery suitBanking Court jurisdictionleave to defendIslamic financingpenal chargesfinancial institution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order and decree passed by the Banking Court in a recovery suit filed by a financial institution under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The core legal questions involved whether a Diminishing Musharika Agreement falls within the statutory definition of 'finance', whether the Banking Court possessed jurisdiction, and the validity of claiming charity or penal charges upon default. The Lahore High Court held that Diminishing Musharika is a form of Musharika that squarely falls within the definition of 'finance' under section 2(d) of the Ordinance, granting the Banking Court full jurisdiction. The Court further held that an application for leave to defend must strictly comply with mandatory statutory disclosures, and out-right denials of the facility attract legal consequences including the rejection of leave. Additionally, the Court laid down that penal clauses disguised as 'charity' for delayed payments are void, unenforceable, and contrary to the Ordinance. Consequently, the appeal along with ancillary civil miscellaneous applications was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Diminishing Musharika Agreement fall within the definition of finance under section 2(d) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of section 10(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 in an application for leave to defend?
  • Can a financial institution legally claim penal charges or penalty disguised as 'charity' under a finance agreement upon default?
  • Whether a defendant can raise completely new pleas and arguments during appeal that were not pleaded in the application for leave to appear and defend the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Din Muhammad Awan RTD Associate Professor and another vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Dep. Lahore2015 PLJ Lahore 1303 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Asif Mehmood Hamraz vs Government of Punjab etc.2015 LHC 6181 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Asghar Ali vs State, etc.PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 612 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-06Read full judgment →
• Doctor Imran Manzoor and anothers, vs Mst. Nighat Bahar Khanum and 10 others2015 CLC 1428 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-01
  section 12(2) c.p.c.locus standirevisional jurisdictionremand orderfraud and misrepresentationnecessary partiesproprietary rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) challenging a previous judgment and decree passed by the High Court in a civil revision, as well as earlier judgments of civil courts, on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of jurisdiction, as the applicants' proprietary rights were affected without them being impleaded as parties. The core legal questions relate to the competence of a revisional court to restore a trial court decree while only adjudicating upon an intermediate remand order, and the locus standi of third parties whose rights are affected by a judgment to challenge it via section 12(2) C.P.C. The Lahore High Court held that a revisional court dealing strictly with an order of remand lacks the jurisdiction to bypass the appellate stage and directly restore the trial court's decree. The Court laid down the principle that a judgment or decree obtained without impleading necessary parties whose rights are directly affected is unsustainable and liable to be set aside upon an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. filed by an aggrieved person having locus standi.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. is competent when a person's rights are affected by a judgment and decree obtained without impleading them as a party?
  • Does a revisional court have the jurisdiction to restore a trial court decree when only an intermediate remand order passed by the lower appellate court is challenged before it?
  • Can delay in filing an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. be condoned when valuable public or private rights are involved and fraud is alleged?
  Read full judgment →
• District Headmasters/Principals Association, Multan through its2015 PLJ Lahore 1183 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• District Headmasters/Principals Association District Multan vs FederationPTCL 2015 CL. 832 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• District Headmasters/Principals Association District Multan through2015 PLJ Lahore 1183, PTCL 2015 CL. 832, 2015 PTD 1714 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• District Headmasters/ Principals Association, Multan through its President2015 LHC 986 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• District Cricket Association, Rahim Yar Khan through President vs Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 7 others2015 PLJ Lahore 922 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dildar Hussain alias Dilbar vs Judge Family Court, Sub-Divisional2015 PLJ Lahore 599 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-17Read full judgment →
• Dildar Ali vs D.C.O. Chiniot, etc2015 PLJ Lahore 290 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-11Read full judgment →
• Dildar Ali vs D.C.O. Chiniot and others2015 PLJ Lahore 290, 2015 CLC 1141 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-11Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Mehmood alias Dulli vs The STATEand another2015 YLR 805 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-11
  murderanti-terrorismcapital punishmentcommutation of sentenceunproven motiveocular accountmedical evidenceabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant impugned his conviction and sentence under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Sections 7 and 21(L) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, which included death sentences and a capital sentence reference. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and an absconding co-accused arrived on a motorcycle and fired burst shots at the deceased resulting in his death. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the corroborative value of medical evidence and prolonged abscondence, the effect of an unproven motive, and the propriety of imposing the death penalty when specific fatal injuries were not individually attributed. The Lahore High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through reliable eyewitness testimony, medical corroboration, and prolonged unexplained abscondence, the failure to prove the alleged motive and the lack of specific attribution of the fatal injury warranted a commutation of the death sentence. The court laid down that when the prosecution alleges a motive but fails to prove it, the ocular evidence must be scrutinized with caution, and where multiple assailants fire indiscriminately and the fatal injury cannot be specifically attributed to an individual accused, the extreme penalty of death should be commuted to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • What are the legal consequences when the prosecution sets up a motive in a murder case but fails to establish it?
  • Whether the death sentence can be confirmed when multiple accused fire at the deceased and the medical evidence does not specify which individual injury caused death?
  • Does prolonged unexplained abscondence serve as corroboration of the prosecution's case?
  • How does the absence of crime empties at the scene of the crime affect the credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• DG, Mda, etc. vs Nasir Ahmad2015 LHC 6188 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-08Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, etc.2015 LHC 5856 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-26Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority vs Commissioner Inland Revenue and others2015 LHC 5856, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 132, 2015 PTD 2538 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-26
  tax auditparametric selectioncomputer ballotstructuring discretionUniversal Self Assessment Schemeincome tax affairsFBR powersjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged their selection for tax audit by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) for the tax year 2011, conducted under Section 214C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The selection was based on parametric computer balloting, which the petitioners argued was arbitrary, lacked transparency, and attached a stigma to businesses labeled as 'high risk.' The core legal question concerned the scope of FBR's discretionary power to select cases for audit and the necessity of structuring such discretion through clear rules or policies. The Lahore High Court held that while the State has a right to audit taxpayers to ensure compliance, such power is not unbridled and must be exercised justly and transparently. Applying the doctrine of 'structuring the discretion,' the Court emphasized that FBR must frame specific rules to regulate its selection process to avoid arbitrary outcomes. The Court referred the cases to the Member (Audit) FBR for individual examination, directing that speaking orders be passed after providing taxpayers an opportunity to be heard regarding the fairness of the parameters used.

  Read full judgment →
• Daula Masih etc., through Sheikh Fazal Karim vs Member Judicial-v, Bor_CSC, Punjab, Notified Officer, Punjab etc2015 LHC 7083 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-21Read full judgment →
• Crescent Steel and Allied Products Limited vs Federation of Pakistan etc2015 LHC 7505 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-26Read full judgment →
• Crescent Jute Products. vs A.D.J., Faisalabad & 2 others.2015 LHC 2200 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-27Read full judgment →
• Crescent Jute Products vs A.D.J., Faisalabad & 2 others2015 PLJ Lahore 800, 2015 LHC 2200 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-27
  ejectment petitionpower of attorneycorporate authorizationBoard of Directors resolutionmaintainabilitylegal competencerent law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated writ petitions challenging an appellate judgment that reversed a trial court's decision regarding the maintainability of ejectment petitions filed by a bank. The core legal question was whether an ejectment petition filed by a bank officer, acting under a generic, cyclostyled power of attorney without a specific Board of Directors' resolution, is legally competent. The Lahore High Court held that the ejectment petitions were incompetent and not maintainable. The Court reasoned that a company, as a legal person, must authorize legal proceedings through a specific resolution of its Board of Directors. A generic power of attorney, lacking specific authorization for the particular litigation and failing to meet registration and stamp duty requirements, is insufficient. The Court affirmed the principle that administrative convenience cannot override mandatory legal requirements; if the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be performed in that manner. Consequently, the appellate court's order was set aside, and the trial court's dismissal of the ejectment petitions was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Is a generic, cyclostyled power of attorney sufficient for a bank officer to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of a company?
  • Does the absence of a specific Board of Directors' resolution authorizing the institution of a legal proceeding render an ejectment petition incompetent?
  • Is a power of attorney authorizing legal proceedings compulsorily registerable under the Registration Act, 1908 and Stamp Act, 1899?
  • Can administrative convenience justify a departure from the mandatory legal requirements for authorizing legal representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth vs Mrs. Naheed Mujtaba. Tax, Rawalpindi2015 P.C.T.L.R. 328, 2015 PTD 545, PTCL 2015 CL.614 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Rawalpindi vs Mrs. Naheed Mujtaba2015 PTD 545 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax. vs M/s Aslam Khan Motor2015 LHC 1306 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Multan vs Ws. Aslam KhanPLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 69 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax vs M/s. Aslam Khan Motor2015 LHC 1306, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 69, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 488 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax vs Mst. Asma Jilani and others2015 LHC 2797, 2015 PTD 2236 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax vs Messrs Aslam Khan Motor2015 PTD 1160 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax vs Aslam Khan Motor111 TAX 265 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax. vs Khushnood Ahmed.2015 LHC 8170 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Zone, Lahore vs M/s. Ciiakwal2015 PLJ Lahore 978 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi vs Sethi Flour Mills111 TAX 51 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi vs M/s. Sethi Flour Mills2015 P.C.T.L.R. 261 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi vs Messrs Sethi Flour Mills, Hassanabdal2015 P.C.T.L.R. 261, 2015 PTD 394 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-I, Lahore vs CrescentPTCL 2015 CL.306 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Doaba Plastics Industries (Pvt.) LtdPTCL 2015 CL.456 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Muslim Insurance Co. Ltd.2015 LHC 8157 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Muslim Insurance Co. Ltd., .2015 PTD 2624 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-09
  revisional jurisdictionfunctus officioadministrative approvaltax assessmentprejudicial to revenuestatutory interpretationRepealed Income Tax Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns the scope of revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner (IAC) under Section 66A of the Repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether an IAC, having provided administrative approval for an assessment order passed by a Deputy Commissioner under Section 62, becomes functus officio and is thereby precluded from subsequently exercising revisional powers under Section 66A to revise that same order. The Appellate Tribunal had previously held that such prior approval rendered the IAC functus officio. The High Court, however, overturned this decision, holding that the IAC's prior approval was merely administrative and consultative in nature, not a judicial act. The Court reasoned that such consultation does not bind the Assessing Officer, nor does it exhaust the IAC's independent supervisory jurisdiction. The ratio established is that administrative approval given during the assessment stage does not divest the IAC of the statutory power to revise an order that is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

  Questions settled

  • Does the granting of administrative approval by an Inspecting Additional Commissioner (IAC) during the assessment process render the IAC functus officio regarding later revisional powers?
  • Can an Inspecting Additional Commissioner exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 66A of the Repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, if they previously provided administrative consultation on the assessment?
  • Is the administrative approval of an assessment by an IAC binding on the Assessing Officer?
  • Does the exercise of revisional powers under Section 66A by an IAC after providing administrative approval constitute a mere change of opinion?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Messr Doaba Plastics Industries (Pvt.)PTCL 2015 CL.456, 2015 PTD 681 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-03
  best judgment assessmentdeemed assessmentincome tax auditretrospective amendmentreference applicationtax referenceassessment order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from reference applications filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax challenging orders of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which held that the provisions of section 121(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could not be invoked for non-submission of documents during audit proceedings in the presence of an assessment order under section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for tax years 2003 to 2009. The core legal question is whether best judgment assessment provisions could be applied to override deemed assessment orders prior to subsequent legislative amendments. The Lahore High Court held in the affirmative, ruling against the department, concluding that prior to the amendments introduced via the Finance Act, 2010 and Finance Act, 2012, the unamended statutory scheme did not permit invoking section 121(1)(d) to nullify a deemed assessment order under section 120 upon non-compliance during audit. The Court reaffirmed that these amendments are prospective and do not apply retrospectively, aligning with the binding view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 121(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could be invoked for non-submission of documents during audit proceedings in the presence of an order under section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Do the amendments to section 121(1)(d) and section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 apply retrospectively?
  • Can a best judgment assessment under section 121 be made to override a deemed assessment under section 120 prior to the legislative amendments introduced by the Finance Acts of 2010 and 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Doaba Plastics Industries (Pvt.)111 TAX 153 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax and Wealth Tax, Rawalpindi vs Messrs2015 PTD 649 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue. vs M/s. Gul Enterprises and others.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 132, 2015 PTD 313, PTCL 2015 CL.464 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue. vs M/s Chicago Metal Works.2015 LHC 2276 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue. vs Muhammad Ali.2015 LHC 6191 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IX Regional Tax Office-II vs Messrs2015 YLR 2594 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Unit, Zone-II, Lahore vs M_s. Nestle Pakistan LtdPTCL 2015 CL.289 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Tariq Poly Pack (Pvt.) Ltd.2015 LHC 1600, 2015 PTD 2256 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-12
  Sales TaxInput Tax CreditBlacklistingFake InvoicesTax FraudSales Tax Act, 1990Burden of ProofRetrospective ApplicationJoint and Several LiabilityTaxpayer Rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses sales tax references concerning the interpretation and applicability of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and Sales Tax Rules, 2006, specifically regarding the blacklisting of supplier units and claims for input tax credit against invoices issued by such units. The core legal questions revolved around whether the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was justified in annulling orders that rejected input tax credit claims based on invoices from blacklisted units, particularly considering Rule 12(5) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, and Section 8A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Lahore High Court held that subsequent blacklisting of a supplier does not automatically invalidate all invoices issued prior to blacklisting when the supplier was active and registered, unless specific invoices are declared fake through a speaking order after affording an opportunity of being heard and have a direct nexus with the blacklisting. The Court emphasized that the initial burden to prove tax fraud or the purchaser's knowledge/suspicion of non-payment of tax by the supplier under Section 8A rests with the department. It was laid down that rules, being subordinate legislation, cannot be applied retrospectively, and in cases of doubt, interpretation favoring the taxpayer should be adopted.

  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Tariq Poly Pack (Pvt) Ltd.111 Trax 405 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Tariq Mehmood and 2 othersPTCL 2015 CL.158, 2015 PTD 120 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-19
  reference applicationrectification of mistakesAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenuemaintainabilitydoctrine of mergerquestion of lawincome tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This Reference Application was filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue against an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue refusing an application for rectification under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether a reference application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is maintainable against an order of the Appellate Tribunal passed on a miscellaneous application refusing to rectify a mistake, where no actual modification or change is made to the original appellate order. The Lahore High Court held that a reference application under Section 133 lies only against an appellate order passed under Section 132 or where an order under Section 221 successfully rectifies and modifies the original order to the prejudice of a party, applying the doctrine of merger. If an application for rectification is dismissed and no change is made, the rectification order stands independent and does not merge into the original order, rendering a reference application against it incompetent. The Court laid down that refusal to rectify does not give rise to a question of law arising out of the appellate order, and allowing references against unadjusted rectification orders would unlawfully bypass the statutory limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a reference application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is maintainable against an order refusing rectification under Section 221 of the said Ordinance?
  • Does an order passed under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 refusing to rectify a mistake merge into the original appellate order passed under Section 132?
  • Can an unsuccessful application for rectification extend the limitation period prescribed for filing a reference application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Under what circumstances does a rectification order give rise to a question of law cognizable in the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Sheikh Manzoor Ahmad2015 LHC 226, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 594, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 39, 2015 PTD 1771 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Shafi Spinning Mills Ltd111 TAX 455 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Shafi Spinning Mills Ltd.2015 C.L.R. 1013, 2015 LHC 1867, 2015 PTD 2368, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 59 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-19
  minimum taxtax creditvested rightsretrospective operation of lawrepeal of lawincome tax referencecarry forward of tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses reference applications filed under Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, concerning tax years 2010 and 2011. The core legal question was whether the law prevailing at the time of payment and carry forward of minimum tax under Section 113 of the Ordinance (tax years 2005 to 2008), or the law existing at the time of its subsequent adjustment (tax years 2010 and 2011), applies for the purpose of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 113. Under the repealed Section 113(2)(c), the carry-forward period was five years, which was later reduced to three years by the Finance Act, 2009. The Court held that the right to carry forward and adjust excess tax accrued under the law prevailing at the time the excess tax was paid, constituting a substantive and vested right. Changes in substantive law operate prospectively unless expressly made retrospective, and vested rights are protected under Article 264 of the Constitution and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, the Court ruled that the adjustment must be governed by the law in force during the years 2005 to 2008, dismissing the department's references.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the law prevailing at the time of payment of minimum tax applies to its subsequent adjustment, or the law existing at the time of adjustment?
  • Does a subsequent change in law reducing the period for carry-forward of minimum tax affect accrued vested rights retrospectively?
  • What is the effect of the repeal of a statutory provision on rights and liabilities already acquired or accrued under the repealed law?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Shafi Spinning Mills Ltd2015 C.L.R. 1013 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Mehran Traders2015 LHC 1160, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 473, 2015 PTD 1330, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Madina Cotton Ginners & Oil Mills2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1046 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Macca CNG Gas Enterprises and2015 P.C.T.L.R. 851, 2015 PTD 515, PTCL 2015 CL.540 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Gul Enterprises, etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 132 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Ghausia Builders (Pvt.) Ltd.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 291 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Azgard Nine Limited2015 P.C.T.L.R. 480 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Tariq Poly Pack (Pvt) Ltd.2015 LHC 1600 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Shafi Spinning Mills Ltd.2015 LHC 1867 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Mehran Traders2015 LHC 1160 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Islam Steel Mills2015 LHC 1050 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Muhammad Shafique2015 LHC 4925, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 103, 2015 PTD 1823 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-09
  Income Tax Ordinanceunexplained incomediscoveryformation of opinionshow-cause noticelimitation periodtax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application before the Lahore High Court under section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, addressed a common question of law regarding the interpretation of the term 'discovered' as used in subsection (2) of section 111 of the Ordinance (prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2010). The core legal question was whether the 'year of discovery' for unexplained income or assets is the year in which the notice under section 111(1)(b) was issued by the Department or the year in which information regarding the purchase of property was initially received. The Court held that 'discovery' is an intermediate, distinct stage between the receipt of information and the final formation of an opinion by the Commissioner. It concluded that the issuance of a show-cause notice based on tangible evidence and material constitutes the exact point of 'discovery' by the Commissioner, which serves as the terminus a quo for limitation periods. Consequently, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the Tribunal was justified in taking the notice issuance date as the point of discovery, and dismissed the reference applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the term 'discovered' under section 111(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 means the receipt of information by the Department or the issuance of a show-cause notice?
  • Is 'discovery' synonymous with the 'formation of opinion' by the Commissioner under section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 prescribe different stages for information, discovery, and final determination?
  • What event triggers the terminus a quo for the period of limitation under section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Muhammad Shafiq2015 LHC 4925 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Muhammad Ali2015 LHC 6191, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 117 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Mis Mehran Traders STR111 TAX 287 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Pepco Pakistan2015 PTD 863 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-10
  income taxfinal tax regimeassessment orderrecovery of taxadvance taxamendment of assessmentwithholding tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application filed by the Department under Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, raised the question whether the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was justified in annulling an order passed under Section 162 of the Ordinance. The respondent taxpayer, a commercial importer, was taxed under the Final Tax Regime, and its statement filed under Section 115(4) attained the status of an assessment order under Section 120 read with Section 169(3). The Taxation Officer subsequently invoked Section 162 to recover a differential amount of tax based on a disputed withholding tax rate. The Lahore High Court held that Section 162 is meant for the recovery of advance tax from the person from whom it was not collected or deducted, and it cannot be invoked after the completion of an assessment where the tax character has changed to 'tax due'. The Court ruled that once an assessment order is finalized, any alteration or amendment to tax liability must strictly follow the procedure provided under Section 122 of the Ordinance, and Section 162 cannot be used as a substitute for amending an assessment. The reference application was accordingly answered in the affirmative and decided against the Department.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 162 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 can be invoked for recovery of tax after the completion of an assessment order?
  • Does a statement filed under Section 115(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 attain the status of an assessment order under Section 120 read with Section 169(3)?
  • Can an existing assessment order be altered or amended under the provisions of Section 162 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 without resorting to Section 122?
  • What is the distinction between advance tax and tax due under the scheme of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Mehran Traders2015 PTD 1330 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Macca CNG Gas Enterprises2015 PTD 515 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Gul Enterprises and others2015 PTD 313 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Ghausia Builders (Pvt.) Ltd.2015 PTD 772 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-24
  income taxlimitation periodretrospective applicationamended assessmentvested rightsprocedural lawtax yearfinancial year
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application was filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue against an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue regarding the tax year 2006. The core legal question was whether the 2009 amendments to Sections 122(2) and 122(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001—which changed the commencement date for the five-year limitation period to the end of the financial year—could be applied retrospectively to assessments where the limitation period had already triggered. The Lahore High Court held that while limitation is generally procedural, an amendment that changes the commencement date of a limitation period already triggered by a taxpayer's filing of a return cannot be applied retrospectively. Such an amendment would impair a vested right that the assessment would not be reopened after the lapse of the original statutory period. The Court concluded that the notice and amended assessment order issued in June 2012 were time-barred, as the five-year period from the 2006 return expired on December 31, 2011. The principle laid down is that procedural amendments cannot impair accrued rights unless the legislature expressly provides for retrospective effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendment to Section 122(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, through the Finance Act, 2009, applies retrospectively to change the commencement date of limitation for past tax years?
  • Can a procedural amendment regarding limitation be applied retrospectively if it impairs a vested right accrued to a taxpayer at the time of filing a return?
  • Whether an amended assessment order passed after the expiry of five years from the date of the original assessment is barred by limitation despite intervening legislative changes to the calculation of time?
  • Does the change in the commencement date of a limitation period constitute a 'past and closed transaction' once the original commencement event has occurred?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Chicago Metal Works2015 LHC 2276, 2015 PTD 1913 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Azgard Nine Ltd.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 480, 2015 PTD 1068 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-08
  Income Tax OrdinanceReference Applicationassessment ordertime limitationmandatory provisiondirectory provisionvoid ab initiostatutory interpretationremandtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a Reference Application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue, challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue concerning tax year 2003. The core legal questions addressed were whether the time limitation specified in Section 124(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is mandatory or directory, and if the Appellate Tribunal was justified in affirming that an assessment order passed beyond this limit was void ab-initio. The Lahore High Court held that the time limit prescribed under Section 124(2) of the Ordinance for making a new assessment order after remand is mandatory. Consequently, an assessment order passed after the expiry of this mandatory period is void ab initio. The Court emphasized that the use of the word "shall" in the statute indicates a mandatory requirement, especially when it pertains to creating liability against a citizen and restricts executive power, and that every word of a statute must be given meaning.

  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Maj. Gen. (R) Dr. C.M. Anwar and 22015 PTD 424 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-25
  income tax referenceamendment of assessmentlimitation periodretrospective applicationvested rightsFinance Act 2009deemed assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application was filed by the Revenue Department under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR). The dispute concerned whether an amendment to Section 122(2) of the Ordinance introduced via the Finance Act, 2009—extending the computation period for amending an assessment—applied retrospectively to an assessment that had already attained finality under the earlier limitation rule. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision in favor of the taxpayer, holding that the amended law did not apply retrospectively. The Court laid down that procedural amendments extending a period of limitation cannot operate retrospectively to divest a taxpayer of a vested right or reopen a past assessment that had already gained finality, unless such legislative intent is explicitly and unequivocally expressed in the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amendment extending the period of limitation under Section 122(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 apply retrospectively to past deemed assessments?
  • Can a procedural amendment in tax law take away a vested right that accrued prior to its enactment?
  • Is an amended assessment order issued after the expiry of the original statutory limitation period void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Imperial Electric Company (Pvt.) Ltd.111 TAX 193 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Imperial Electric Company (Pvt.) Ltd.2015 PTD 884 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-19
  minimum taxfinal tax regimeturnover from all sourcesincome tax referencestrict interpretation of taxing statutespresumptive tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court resolves a batch of reference applications filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue under section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, relating to tax years 2003 through 2007. The core legal question was whether receipts and tax paid under the Final Tax Regime (FTR) should be included in the aggregate turnover from all sources for the purpose of charging minimum tax under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Court held that since Section 113 is a charging provision which must be interpreted strictly and literally, and because receipts under FTR were not explicitly excluded from the definition of 'turnover from all sources' during the relevant tax years, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in including FTR receipts in the aggregate turnover for minimum tax calculation. The reference applications were decided in the affirmative against the Department, establishing that taxing statutes must rely on clear and unambiguous language without reading in implied exceptions or expanding liabilities beyond the literal text.

  Questions settled

  • Whether under the facts and circumstances, Appellate Tribunal was justified to include receipts and tax under Final Tax Regime in aggregate of turnover from all sources for charging minimum tax under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does an explanation inserted into a statute through a later amendment have retrospective application to a provision that was previously omitted?
  • Are receipts under the Final Tax Regime excluded from the definition of turnover for the purpose of calculating minimum tax under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as it stood prior to the Finance Act, 2008?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Chicago Metal Works112 TAX 10 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Azgard Nine Limited111 TAX 145 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Lahore. vs Saritow Spinning Mills Ltd., Lahore2015 LHC 6523 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner In-land Revenue vs Ms. Madina Cotton Ginners & Oil Mills2015 LHC 3812 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-25Read full judgment →
• Combined Military Hospital, Bahawalpur vs Presiding Officer, Punjab2015 C.L.R. 87, 2015 PLC 286 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-03
  Combined Military HospitalPunjab Industrial Relations Act 2010Armed Forces exemptionLabour Court jurisdictionConstitutional petitionService matterWorkman definition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Punjab Labour Court, which had reinstated a former employee of the Combined Military Hospital, Bahawalpur. The core legal question was whether the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 applies to employees of the Combined Military Hospital, or if such entities are exempt under the Act's provisions regarding services connected to the Armed Forces. The High Court held that the Combined Military Hospital is an installation exclusively connected with the Armed Forces of Pakistan, operating under the direct command of the Pakistan Army Medical Corps. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 is inapplicable to its employees, rendering the Labour Court's proceedings coram non judice and without jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that establishments or services exclusively connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan fall under the exclusionary ambit of Section 1(3)(a) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, thereby precluding Labour Courts from adjudicating employment disputes involving such entities. The impugned reinstatement order was accordingly set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 apply to employees of the Combined Military Hospital?
  • Are services or installations connected with the Armed Forces of Pakistan excluded from the operation of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition filed by an employee of a military hospital?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order passed by a Labour Court when the underlying Act is inapplicable to the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →