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. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Ms. Mitra Eruch Kalapesi Versus Eruch Kalapesi2016 CLCN 44 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-05Read full judgment →
• Dawood Foundation through Chairman Versus Ghulam Hasan2016 CLCN 25 · Sindh High Court · 2013-10-31Read full judgment →
• Shamshair Ali Versus Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) and City Survey Officer2016 CLCN 22 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nusrat Aziz Versus City District Government, Karachi2016 CLCN 2 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Versus Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2016 CLCN 19 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajid Ali Versus City District Government, Karachi2016 CLCN 16 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-14Read full judgment →
• Usman Versus Muhammad Younus Gondal2016 CLCN 155 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghazala Ishrat Versus Mst. Sarwat Hussain2016 CLCN 154 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Versus Saifee Hospital2016 CLCN 153 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Abida Parveen Channar Versus Naushad Ali Mughal2016 CLCN 152 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-13Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Ur-Rehman Versus Haji Dr. Sarfaraz Hussain2016 CLCN 151 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-09Read full judgment →
• Aziz Darugar Versus Israfeel and Sons2016 CLCN 149 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar Versus The Viith Additional District Judge, Karachi (East)2016 CLCN 148 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-15Read full judgment →
• Adil Ghanchi Versus Royal Group (Formerly Known as Royal Multipurpose)2016 CLCN 146 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Fatima Versus Goodwill (Pvt.) Ltd.2016 CLCN 143 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-11Read full judgment →
• Golden Textile Mills Limited Versus Sun Shine Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory2016 CLCN 140 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mir Shabbir Ali Bijarani Versus The Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad2016 CLCN 137 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naved Aslam Versus E.D.O. Revenue Jamshoro2016 CLCN 132 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-13Read full judgment →
• Imam Ali Versus Muhammad Hassan2016 CLCN 13 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Ghani Versus Malir Development Authority2016 CLCN 129 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Abbasi Begum Versus Gulzar Ali2016 CLCN 124 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Almas Mughal Versus Abdul Sattar2016 CLCN 119 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-10Read full judgment →
• Asif Chamdia Versus Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited2016 CLCN 114 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ayub Lambat Versus Valika Properties (Pvt.) Ltd.2016 CLCN 109 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sher Bano Versus Karachi Water and Sewerage Board2016 CLCN 104 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mobeen Raza Versus Alloo and Minocher Dinshaw2016 CLCN 10 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-09Read full judgment →
• Millennium Mall Management Co. Versus Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence2025 PTD 954 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-06Read full judgment →
• Marine Services (Private) Limited Versus Federal Board of Revenue2025 PTD 903 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
• Pak Terry Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance2025 PTD 871 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
• Galaxy Impex Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad2025 PTD 786 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs (Law) MCC-Appraisement (East), Customs House, Karachi Versus Zahid Ali & Company2025 PTD 765 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs Versus Khalid Impex2025 PTD 740 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs (West) through Deputy Collector of Customs, Karachi Versus Seminar (Pvt.) Limited2025 PTD 695 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-23Read full judgment →
• Loreal Pakistan PSRM (Pvt.) Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan2025 PTD 1895 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-23Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, MCC PaCCS Versus Abdul Wahid & Co.2025 PTD 1847 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
• Hayat Kimya Pakistan (Private) Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance2025 PTD 1824 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• Occidental Petroleum (Pakistan) Inc. Versus Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone III, Large Taxpayers Unit2025 PTD 1777 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-21Read full judgment →
• Sabre Travel Network Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Pakistan2025 PTD 1769 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-21Read full judgment →
• M. Iqbal & Sons Versus Federation of Pakistan2025 PTD 1755 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
• Summit Capital (Pvt.) Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (Unit-IV), Sindh Revenue Board2025 PTD 1733 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-04Read full judgment →
• Director through Additional Director of Pca (Law) and Collector of Customs Versus R.J. Corporation2025 PTD 1693 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Fazlee Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan2025 PTD 1609 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-20Read full judgment →
• M.A. Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan2025 PTD 1586 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-07Read full judgment →
• Tec Style Emporium Versus Federation of Pakistan2025 PTD 1570 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-07Read full judgment →
• New Era Fabrics Versus Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue2025 PTD 1519 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mukesh Kumar Versus Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Ghulam Murtaza Khuhro2025 PTD 1483 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• Al Masoom Products Versus Commissioner (Appeal-VI) Inland Revenue2025 PTD 1433 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-10Read full judgment →
• Rakesh Keshwani Versus Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue Omer Memon and Aitzad Manzoor Memon , Mr. Ameer Bakhsh Metlo2025 PTD 143 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through Authorized Attorney Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad2025 PTD 1410 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• National Food Limited Versus Collector of Customs Model Customs Collectorate of Ppraisement-West2025 PTD 1391 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mal Pakistan Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan2025 PTD 1324 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-15Read full judgment →
• Rousch (Pakistan) Power Limited Versus The Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of Preventive, Customs House, Karachi2025 PTD 1222 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-11Read full judgment →
• Umar Textiles Versus Federal Board of Revenue2025 PTD 1215 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-27Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Karachi Versus Allmed Laboratories Karachi2025 PTD 1206 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• Premier Mercantile Services (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner Inland Revenue2025 PTD 1169 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-28
  arm's length transactionassociated companiesimputed interest incometax avoidancebanking channelstax referencedisallowance of expenses
  Summary & questions settled

  This Reference Application concerns whether interest income should be imputed on an interest-free loan advanced by a taxpayer to an associated company, and whether payments made outside banking channels are subject to tax additions. The Applicant challenged an Appellate Tribunal order that upheld the addition of imputed interest income under Section 108 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the disallowance of expenses paid in cash. The Court held that Section 108 empowers the Commissioner to adjust income between associated persons to reflect an arm's length transaction, and since the loan was not at arm's length, the imputation of interest was lawful. The Court further held that the Applicant failed to justify the cash payments of Rs. 825,645/-, thus confirming their addition under Section 21(m). However, the Court set aside the Tribunal's finding regarding the Rs. 795,000/- salary payment, as the Department had not challenged the Assessing Officer's decision in favor of the Applicant on that specific issue. The key principle established is that Section 108 allows the Commissioner to reallocate income to reflect arm's length standards in transactions between associates to prevent tax avoidance.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Commissioner impute interest income on an interest-free loan provided to an associated company under Section 108 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the failure to pay expenses through a banking channel justify the addition of such amounts to the taxpayer's income under Section 21(m) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can an appellate forum adjudicate upon an issue that was decided in the taxpayer's favor by the Assessing Officer and was not challenged by the Department in the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ary Communications Limited Versus Federal Board of Revenue2025 PTD 1125 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mirza Aslam Baig Versus Federation of Pakistan through Minister for Finance and Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2025 PTD 1100 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-11Read full judgment →
• Tasneem Enterprises (Private) Limited Versus National Tariff Commission2025 PTD 1039 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-28Read full judgment →
• Western Freight Shipping (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division2025 PTD 1012 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-03Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad2024 PTD 736 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-31Read full judgment →
• Searle Company Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan2023 PTD 1829 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
• Atlas Honda Ltd. Versus Pakistan through Secretary Revenue2022 PTD 866 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-18Read full judgment →
• Saleem Butt Versus Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division2022 PTD 812 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-31Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, through Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Versus Danish Iqbal Enterprises, (Chal-2160), Karachi2022 PTD 656 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• Driveline Motors Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary/Chairman Federal Board of Revenue Adnan Ahmed Zafar , Rana Sakhawat2022 PTD 363 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-05Read full judgment →
• Dawood-Ur-Rehman Versus State2022 PTD 1611 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
• Ikraam Khan Versus State2022 PTD 1566 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-06
  post-arrest bailcustoms offenceliberty of the individualprohibitory clausetentative assessmentinterim charge sheet
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns bail applications filed by the applicants, who were implicated in an FIR registered under the Customs Act, 1969, for the alleged theft of goods from a Government Warehouse. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail, given that they were not named in the FIR, the investigation against them was complete, and they were no longer required for further investigation. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, emphasizing that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial rather than to punish them before conviction. The Court observed that the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that detention should not be used as a punitive measure. The key principle laid down is that liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted as a rule and refused as an exception, particularly when the accused is not a previous convict and the investigation is complete.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail to be granted as a rule in cases that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
  • Can bail be refused to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving them a taste of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanofi-Aventis Pakistan Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan2022 PTD 1205 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
• Yunus Textile Mills Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad2022 PTD 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Nawaz Versus State2021 PTD 788 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-03
  customs fraudconvictionsentence modificationevasion of dutysentencing policyprolonged trialcustoms act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Judge, Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, convicting the appellants under Section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 for tax and duty fraud regarding the import of machinery through manipulated and forged documents, causing a substantial loss to the national exchequer. The appellants did not press their appeals on merits, instead pleading for leniency and modification of their sentences on humanitarian grounds due to the protracted trial lasting over 25 years and their advanced age/retirement. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could convert or modify a sentence of imprisonment to a fine in lieu thereof under the circumstances. The Sindh High Court held that while the conviction must be maintained as the appellants did not challenge the merits, the sentence of imprisonment could be converted into an enhanced fine in lieu of imprisonment, considering the sentencing policy of the Customs Act, 1969, the prolonged delay, and the lack of recovery efforts by the prosecution. The principle laid down is that where the statute provides alternative punishments of imprisonment or fine, and in view of exceptional circumstances like a prolonged trial and the primary objective of compensating revenue loss, the appellate court may convert a substantive sentence of imprisonment into an additional fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can convert a sentence of imprisonment into a fine in lieu of imprisonment under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the prolonged pendency of a criminal trial and appeal constitute a valid ground for mitigating a sentence?
  • Whether the alternative use of 'or' between imprisonment and fine in penal statutes grants the court discretion to impose only a fine without imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal E Rabbi Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division/Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue2020 PTD 281 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim Versus State2020 PTD 227 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-09
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailtax evasionSales Tax Actfake invoiceswhite-collar crimeadjudication proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, regarding alleged tax evasion through fake invoices and inadmissible input tax adjustments. Although the applicant was not named in the initial F.I.R., his name subsequently appeared in the supplementary final report as a beneficiary. During the proceedings, it was noted that the departmental tax assessment against the applicant had already been annulled in his favour by the Commissioner, Inland Revenue (Appeals), and no challenge to that appellate order was pending. The Sindh High Court held that while civil and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously and white-collar crimes demand strict scrutiny, the favorable adjudication finding regarding the tax liability provided a strong plea of innocence and distinguished the applicant's case. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant, ruling that the existence of an unchallenged exoneration in the tax adjudication proceedings created reasonable grounds for extending pre-arrest protection, subject to his regular attendance during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a favorable adjudication order in tax proceedings hold weight when considering a pre-arrest bail application in a related criminal case?
  • Can civil tax proceedings and criminal prosecutions for tax evasion take place simultaneously without mutually binding outcomes?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an accused is implicated merely as a beneficiary and has been exonerated by the departmental appellate authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan2020 PTD 2200 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-24
  Judicial AllowanceSpecial Judicial AllowanceIncome TaxSalaryTax ExemptionWithholding TaxSubordinate JudiciaryHigh Court Establishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by members of the establishment of the Sindh High Court and subordinate judiciary challenging the deduction of income tax at source on their Judicial Allowance and Special Judicial Allowance by the Accountant General Sindh under Section 149 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether Judicial Allowance and Special Judicial Allowance form part of taxable salary under Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, or whether they fall within the exclusion provided under Section 12(2)(c) as allowances solely expended in the performance of duties of employment. The Sindh High Court held that the allowances in question fall squarely within the exclusion clause of Section 12(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and are therefore not part of taxable salary income nor chargeable to tax or withholding under Section 149. The key principle laid down is that allowances granted to judicial officers and court staff in recognition of their specialized duties are excluded from the definition of salary under fiscal statutes and cannot be subjected to income tax deductions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Judicial Allowance and Special Judicial Allowance constitute taxable salary under Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does Section 12(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 exclude allowances solely expended in the performance of employment duties from the definition of salary?
  • Is the Accountant General authorized to deduct income tax at source under Section 149 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on Judicial and Special Judicial Allowances?
  • Whether taxing judicial allowances of employees in one province while exempting them in others violates the principle of non-discrimination among the same class of persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Versus National Bank of Pakistan2020 PTD 1815 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-03Read full judgment →
• HBL Stock Fund Versus Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue Naveed A. Andrabi, Anwar Kashif Mumtaz , Amjad Jawaid Hashmi, Ameer Bakhsh Metlo2020 PTD 1742 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-21Read full judgment →
• Orient Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Government of Sindh through Secretary Finance Karachi2017 PTD 2197 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Sukkur Versus Ranipur CNG Station, Ranipur2017 PTD 1839 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II Versus Siemens Pakistan Engineering, Company Ltd., Karachi2017 PTD 1832 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-02Read full judgment →
• New Allied Electronics Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division2017 PTD 130 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-20Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority Versus Federal Board of Revenue2016 PTD 961 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
• Director General Pakistan Cost Guards Versus Iqbal Afghani2016 PTD 900 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• China Harbour Engineering Company Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Chairman2016 PTD 427 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waheed Versus Customs Appellate Tribunal2016 PTD 35 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Athar Hafeez Khan Versus Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance2016 PTD 2219 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-13Read full judgment →
• Yunus Textile Mills Ltd. Versus Pakistan through Secretary (Revenue Division)2016 PTD 1056 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Karachi Versus Eastern Cargo Centre2015 PTD 995 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-19Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, through Additional Collector of Customs Versus Eastern Construction Company2015 PTD 963 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-22Read full judgment →
• Docks Private Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Chairman2015 PTD 948 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-23Read full judgment →
• Soneri International Versus Collector of Custom2015 PTD 902 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mumtazuddin Versus State2015 PTD 668 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-10
  post-arrest bailsmugglingCustoms Actdeclaration of baggagefurther inquirybanned items
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under sections 2(s) and 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with the Import Policy, 2013 for alleged arms smuggling after parts of Glock pistols and magazines were recovered from his baggage at the Karachi airport. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a bail application before a High Court divisional bench against an order of a Special Appellate Court, whether the recovery of pistol parts constituted smuggling under the Customs Act or fell under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, and whether the absence of a proper declaration opportunity and the lack of customs officials as seizure witnesses warranted further inquiry. The court held that the bail application against the Special Appellate Court's order is maintainable before the High Court's divisional bench, that the provisions regarding smuggling are distinct from banned import lists, and that the circumstances surrounding the seizure and lack of declaration opportunity made the case one of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that an accused is entitled to bail even if an offence falls within the prohibitory clause when the case requires further inquiry, and the benefit of doubt must be extended at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a bail application maintainable before a divisional bench of the High Court against an order passed by a Special Appellate Court under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Whether the recovery of pistol parts from a passenger's baggage without an opportunity to make a customs declaration constitutes an offence of smuggling under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate customs officials as witnesses to a seizure memo create grounds for further inquiry at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Fabrics Versus Federation of Pakistan Muhammad Afzal Awan , Abdul Aziz Buriro2015 PTD 2321 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• Safe Life (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary/Chairman2015 PTD 1555 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Versus Pak Arab Pipe Line Company Ltd.2014 PTD 982 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-19Read full judgment →
• Khatri Brothers Versus Federation of Pakistan2014 PTD 966 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-30Read full judgment →
• Umer Farooq Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad2014 PTD 894 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Surayya Begum Versus Deputy Collector of Customs2014 PTD 859 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-03Read full judgment →
• Chaudari Shabbir Hussain Versus State2014 PTD 612 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-11
  tax fraudpost-arrest bailwhite-collar crimesales tax refundfake invoicesnational exchequerprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused facing trial for alleged tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, involving the submission of fake invoices and the fraudulent claiming of sales tax refunds, causing a significant loss to the national exchequer. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the allegations of white-collar crime and the purported lack of final determination of tax liability. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case connecting the applicant to the alleged tax fraud. The court emphasized that in cases of white-collar crime, which are directed against society as a whole and the national economy, courts must exercise discretion strictly. The court further held that technical arguments regarding the validity of registered firms, the status of refund claims, and procedural notices were matters to be adjudicated by the trial court during the full trial, rather than at the bail stage. The principle established is that bail in white-collar crimes causing massive state financial loss requires a more stringent judicial approach.

  Questions settled

  • Does the commission of tax fraud causing significant loss to the national exchequer warrant a stricter approach in granting bail?
  • Are technical arguments regarding the validity of tax registration and refund processing procedures suitable for determination at the bail stage?
  • Is a prima facie case of tax fraud sufficient to deny bail even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal International Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division/Chairman2014 PTD 465 · Sindh High Court · 2013-12-19Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali Versus Special Judge (Customs and Taxation)2014 PTD 42 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-02Read full judgment →
• Al Amna International Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary/ Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue2014 PTD 370 · Sindh High Court · 2013-10-21Read full judgment →