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.

• Haji Ali Rehman and anothers vs The State and 6 others1985 P Cr. L J 1771 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Ali Muhammad Panwala through Legal Heirs vs Haji Muhammad1985 CLC 2801 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Ghani vs Asghar Ali1985 CLC 2080 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Khan vs Mir Ali Khan and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 744 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank, Ltd. vs Muhammad Nasir Hassan1985 MLD 966 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Al-Meezan International Ltd. and others1985 CLC 3023 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmad vs Liaquat Hussain1985 PLD Karachi 741 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-20
  written agreement of tenancyoral tenancyejectment applicationRent Controller jurisdictiondefault in payment of rentrent receiptsburden of proofSind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Sindh High Court arose from a Rent Controller's order directing the eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The tenancy was created after the enforcement of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The High Court examined whether an eviction application based on an unwritten tenancy agreement was maintainable under Section 5 of the Ordinance and evaluated the evidence regarding rent default and rate of rent. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that Section 5 of the Ordinance mandatorily requires tenancy agreements executed after its enforcement to be reduced to writing, rendered certified/attested written agreements as exclusive proof of the relationship, and deprived the Rent Controller of jurisdiction over oral tenancies. On the merits, the court held that where a landlord fails to issue rent receipts as required by Section 10, he cannot insist on strict proof of payment by receipts, and the tenant's oral testimony under oath can be accepted to discharge the burden of proving payment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a written tenancy agreement mandatory under Section 5 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 for tenancies created after its enforcement?
  • Does a Rent Controller have jurisdiction to entertain an eviction application based on an oral tenancy created after the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 came into force?
  • How is the burden of proof regarding payment of rent affected when a landlord fails to issue written acknowledgments of rent under Section 10 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 322 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Begum vs Mst. Amtun Nisa1985 MLD 119 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
• Gulee alias Ghulam Nabi vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1552 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-20Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad and anothers vs The State and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 621 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad and 2 others vs Muhammad Shafi and 3 others1985 CLC 127 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-18Read full judgment →
• Gul Hass an vs Habibullah and 3 others1985 CLC 2281 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Gul Bahar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2696 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-21Read full judgment →
• Government of Sind through Direct'or Schools Education, Karachi and another vs VIII Senior Civil Judge_A.S.J._Controller, Karachi and another1985 CLC 2115 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture Division, Food Directorate, Karachi vs Messrs Rafi Associates Ltd. and another1985 CLC 2234 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-07
  condonation of delaylimitationsufficient causegood faithnegligencegovernment litigationLaw Reforms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing a petition for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court, instead of filing an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court, could be excluded under the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether the government is entitled to special treatment regarding limitation. The Court held that the delay could not be condoned, dismissing the appeal as time-barred. It ruled that the appellant failed to exercise due care and attention, and ignorance of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, which mandated the correct appellate forum, constituted negligence. The Court established that government departments are not entitled to preferential treatment or special indulgence compared to ordinary litigants. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that delay must be explained for every day, and negligence or lack of diligence does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time spent prosecuting a petition in the wrong forum be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, if the party failed to exercise due care?
  • Are government departments entitled to special indulgence or preferential treatment regarding the condonation of delay in legal proceedings?
  • Does ignorance of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, constitute a valid ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal?
  • Is the delay of each day required to be explained when seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Gohar Khan and 3 others vs Mehdi Khan (deceased) Through Legal Heirs1985 MLD 284 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-27Read full judgment →
• Global Shipping Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs m.v. 'Sea Elite' and others1985 CLC 1509 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Government of Sind and 3 others1985 CLC 16 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and ANOTHERs vs The Returning Officer, N. A. 196, Malir1985 PLD Karachi 315 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 256 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 257 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Gabol and another vs Karachi Development1985 CLC 2414 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 915 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and another vs Abdullah and 2 others1985 MLD 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 4 others vs The Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar1985 MLD 401 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohayauddin and 3 others vs Jaffar and another1985 CLC 1992 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Shaukat Ali and another1985 CLC 1997 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-06
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needjurisdiction of Rent Controllerlease agreementcontracting out of statutetitle disputelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller in favor of the landlords on the ground of personal bona fide need. The core legal questions involve whether a landlord can contract out of the statutory right of ejectment through a lease agreement clause, and whether a Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon complex questions of title, specific performance, or property ownership. The Sindh High Court held that a clause in a tenancy agreement purporting to bar the landlord from ever seeking ejectment does not preclude the statutory remedy unless supported by substantial reciprocal advantages or benefits, and that a Rent Controller is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction unable to decide intricate questions of title or specific performance, which must instead be agitated before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord can contract out of the statutory right of ejectment through a clause in the lease agreement?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon complex questions of title, specific performance, and property ownership?
  • Whether an agreement barring ejectment so long as rent is paid is binding on the landlord without proof of substantial reciprocal advantage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Aziz Hussain1985 MLD 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs Muhammad Hussain Kathawala and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 152 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2704 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ghiasul Mansoor and another vs Naik Muhammad alias Naikoo and 21985 MLD 487 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghazi vs Umar and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 251 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
• Ghazi vs Umar and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 253 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
• GH Ulam Muhammad vs Khushi Muhammad1985 CLC 2069 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
• GH U La M H a Ider vs The Settlement Commissioner. Sind(General ), Central Cell and 4 others1985 CLC 2052 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs Noor Muhammad Bana1985 CLC 3014 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11
  first rent appealejectmentpersonal requirementdefault in rentalternate accommodationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a first rent appeal filed by the landlord-appellant against the dismissal of his ejectment application by the Rent Controller. The core legal question is whether the appellant successfully established the ground of personal requirement for his son regarding the shop in the tenant's occupation, particularly when the appellant failed to disclose in the ejectment application or examination-in-chief that another shop was already in his possession, and failed to prove the unsuitability of that existing shop. The court held that the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the ejectment application as the appellant failed to establish bona fide personal requirement and omitted crucial material facts regarding alternate accommodation from his pleadings and examination-in-chief. The key principle laid down is that a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal requirement must disclose the availability of any other alternate premises in his occupation and prove the unsuitability thereof for the claimed need.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord is required to disclose in the ejectment application the possession of another shop or property?
  • Does failure to establish the unsuitability of alternate premises in the landlord's possession defeat a claim of personal requirement?
  • Whether the non-examination of the son for whose benefit the premises are required affects the proof of personal requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs Mst. Yasmeen and others1985 MLD 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs Mat. Anwari Khatoon1985 MLD 110 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ferozur Rehman vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1573 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-15Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad vs Aspi Dossabhoy Jamula1985 PLC (C.S.) 1041 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ellahi and 2 others vs The State and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 268 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
• Fauji Foundation vs Central Board of Revenue and others1985 CLC 2728 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Fauji Foundation and others vs Yousuf1985 CLC 2799 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-01
  arbitration agreementterritorial jurisdictionoriginal civil jurisdictioncause of actioncorporation domicileappointment of arbitratorbreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court ordering the filing of an agreement for arbitration and appointing a sole arbitrator in a dispute arising from four contracts for the sale of cotton. The appellant contended that the application under the Arbitration Act was not maintainable before the High Court at Karachi due to the corporate domicile of the appellant, that the arbitration clause did not cover the dispute, and that a security deposit claim could not be the subject matter of arbitration. The core legal questions involved territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to corporations, the applicability of specific provisions to the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction, and the scope of matters referable to arbitration. The court held that by virtue of section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 20 does not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, and since part of the cause of action accrued at Karachi, the application was competently filed. The appeal was dismissed with the modification of appointing a new arbitrator due to the demise of the originally appointed arbitrator.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under the Arbitration Act against a corporation can be filed in the High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction when part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits?
  • Does section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure exclude the application of section 20 of the Code to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction?
  • Can a suit or application regarding a breach of contract be filed at a place where the contract was to be performed in whole or in part?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq International vs Chief Controller Of Imports And Exports And 4 OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 353 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ali vs Banqu E Indosuez and 3 others1985 CLC 630 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
• Fareed Ahmad vs The State1985 MLD 1326 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
• Fakir Muhammad and 7 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 530 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
• Faizul Hasan Shaikh vs Anzar Ahmad S1ddiqui1985 PLD Karachi 43 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-06
  rent controlstriking off defensesecurity depositarrears of rentSind Rented Premises Ordinancetenancy agreementfuture rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order by the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defense for failure to deposit rent arrears and future monthly rent under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller could mandate the deposit of future rent without a specific application from the landlord and whether a security deposit held by the landlord should be automatically adjusted against rent arrears. The Court held that under Section 16(1) of the Ordinance, the Rent Controller possesses the independent authority to direct the payment of future monthly rent without requiring a formal application from the landlord. Furthermore, the Court determined that the security deposit was not automatically adjustable against rent arrears, particularly because the tenancy agreement stipulated that the deposit was refundable only upon vacating the premises after accounting for potential damages and charges. As the plea for adjustment was not raised before the Rent Controller and the agreement terms did not support immediate set-off, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Rent Controller have the power to order the deposit of future monthly rent without a specific application from the landlord under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a security deposit held by a landlord automatically adjustable against rent arrears to prevent the striking off of a tenant's defense?
  • Can a tenant claim the adjustment of a security deposit against rent arrears if such a plea was not raised before the Rent Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad Wassan and 2 others vs Member, Federal Land1985 CLC 2077 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2132 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad alias Alabu vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2332 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmed and 8 others vs Settlement Commissioner Lands, Hyderabad1985 CLC 974 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04
  Produce Index UnitsBanjar landChahi landretrospective effectsubordinate legislationlocus poenitentiaeagricultural land allotmentvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad, regarding the valuation of agricultural land allotted to the petitioner in 1959. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the valuation benefits for Banjar-e-Jadid and Banjar-e-Qadeem lands as per a 1957 Correction Slip, and a 10% concession for Chahi lands, despite the subsequent withdrawal of that slip in 1962. The Court held that the petitioner’s rights had vested at the time of the 1959 allotment when the Correction Slip was in force. Consequently, the 1962 notification withdrawing the slip could not be applied retrospectively to divest these accrued rights. The Court declared the impugned orders without lawful authority and remanded the case for re-determination of the petitioner's entitlement. The key principle laid down is that executive notifications constituting subordinate legislation cannot have retrospective effect to deprive individuals of vested rights, and the principle of locus poenitentiae prevents the government from rescinding orders once they have taken legal effect and created rights in favor of an individual.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive notification or subordinate legislation be given retrospective effect to deprive individuals of vested rights?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae allow the government to withdraw an order after it has taken legal effect and created rights?
  • Is a claimant entitled to the benefit of a correction slip regarding land valuation if the allotment was made while the slip was in force?
  Read full judgment →
• F.K. Abbasi vs M.I. Ma LI K1985 CLC 1603 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16
  land acquisitionvesting of titledistress warrantrecovery of rentsmall causes courtpossession of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This Revision Application challenges the dismissal of a Distress Warrant Application filed under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act for the recovery of rent. The core legal question was whether an owner of property acquired by the government loses title upon the announcement of an acquisition award or only upon the actual taking of possession. The trial court had dismissed the claim, erroneously holding that the award alone divested the applicant of ownership. The High Court, relying on Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and established precedents, held that title to acquired property does not pass to the government merely upon the making of an award. Instead, ownership and the right to collect rent continue until the government takes actual possession of the land. Consequently, the court found the applicant remained the rightful owner during the disputed period and was entitled to the rent. The principle established is that the vesting of property in the government under the Land Acquisition Act is deferred until the physical possession is taken by the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does title to property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pass to the government upon the announcement of an award?
  • At what stage does property acquired by the government vest absolutely in the state under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is an owner of property entitled to recover rent for the period between the acquisition award and the actual taking of possession by the government?
  Read full judgment →
• F a Z Aluddin vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind, Karachi and 3 others1985 CLC 2060 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
• Exxon Chemical Pakistan Ltd. vs The Province of Sind through its1985 MLD 482 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
• Esmail Jamal and Company vs Allied Bank of Pakistan and 3 others1985 CLC 857 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-29Read full judgment →
• Ebrahim Brothers Ltd. vs Wealth Tax Officer, Circle III, Karachi and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Karachi 407 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-24
  wealth taxassets definitionletting outtenancy versus licenceprinting mistake in gazettedisjunctive interpretationimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three constitutional petitions filed by a private limited company impugning the levy of wealth tax on its building comprising go-downs and offices located at West Wharf, Karachi. The core legal questions involved the retrospective effect of an amendment to the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 based on a printing error in the official Gazette, whether a company's immovable property held for letting out falls within the definition of 'assets' under section 2(e)(ii) of the Act, whether the occupants were tenants or licensees, and how the term 'letting out' should be construed. The court held that a printing mistake in the official Gazette regarding the date of an amending Ordinance does not nullify the original text signed by the President, that the phrases 'construction and sale' and 'letting out' in section 2(e)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 must be read disjunctively, that exclusive possession establishes a tenancy rather than a licence, and that charging sections of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 cannot be imported to define terms undefined in the Wealth Tax Act. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a printing mistake in the official Gazette regarding the enforcement date of an amending Ordinance nullify the original text signed by the President?
  • Should the expressions 'construction and sale' and 'letting out' in section 2(e)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 be read conjunctively or disjunctively?
  • What is the criterion to determine whether an occupant of a property is a tenant or a licensee?
  • Can the concept of 'letting out' provided in section 19 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 be pressed into service to interpret the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 when the term is undefined?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammd Iqbal vs . The Director, Cantonment, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others1985 MLD 1207 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Amin vs Abu Zahid1985 MLD 1183 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. M. Suleman vs Ibrahim1985 CLC 2103 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Ahmad vs Moghul Abdul Shakoor through his Legal Heirs1985 MLD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. Buland Iqbal vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2845 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Shakoor vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2477 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Ghani vs Dr. Muhammad Younus and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 593 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-03Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and others vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1985 CLC 2718 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
• Dost Ali alias Ali Dost vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1769 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
• Dhani Bux vs Chhajoo Khan1985 MLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner-First Party vs Raja Amir Zaman and Others1985 PLD Karachi 385 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-23Read full judgment →
• Dawood vs Mat. Zubaida Bai1985 MLD 112 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. vs The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad1985 MLD 1610 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-01Read full judgment →
• Dada Steel Mills. vs Central Board Of Revenue, Islamabad, And 2 OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 441 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
• Dada Steel Mills vs Metalexport and 5 others1985 CLC 1814 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
• Dada Steel Mills vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 Others1985 PTD 449 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
• Consortium 2,000 vs K.E.S.C. Ltd.1985 CLC 347 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Wealth Tax/Lncome Tax (Centra) vs Abdul RazzakPTCL 1985 (CL.) 288 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax/Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs1985 PTD 202 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Wealth Tax/Income Tax, Karachi vs Abu Talib DadaPTCL 1985 (CL.) 111 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs Messrs a & B1985 PTD 488 · Sindh High Court · 1967-06-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Karachi vs M/s. Pakistan Fisheries Limited,PTCL 1985 (CL) 270 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax, Karachi vs Messrs Pakistan Fisheries Ltd., Karachi1985 PTD 282 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-10
  sales taxstatutory interpretationmandatory vs directorydepartmental constructionForm S.S.T. 15escaped assessmentnotice validity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves direct references filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 28(2) of the Sales Tax Act 1951. The core legal question was whether the Sales Tax Officer is bound by the 35-day period prescribed in Form S.S.T. 15 for filing returns, or if this requirement is merely directory. The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal correctly determined the notice was void ab initio for failing to allow the statutory 35-day period. The Court reasoned that instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 5(3) of the Act, including prescribed forms, are binding on departmental officers. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the period prescribed in Form S.S.T. 15 is mandatory, not directory, and Sales Tax Officers lack the authority to unilaterally curtail this statutory limitation. The judgment establishes the principle that departmental forms issued under statutory authority must be strictly observed, and administrative convenience cannot override mandatory procedural requirements designed to protect the assessee's rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is the 35-day period for filing returns prescribed in Form S.S.T. 15 under the Sales Tax Act 1951 mandatory or directory?
  • Do Sales Tax Officers have the authority to curtail the statutory period prescribed for filing returns in Form S.S.T. 15?
  • Are instructions and forms issued by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 5(3) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 binding on Sales Tax Officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Sales Tax (East), Karachi. vs Philips Electrical Industries, KarachiPTCL 1985 (CL.) 498 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi vs Messrs Pakistan Security1985 PTD 413 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-12
  income-tax referencefree reservesgratuity provisionascertained liabilitycommercial accountancytrading liabilityIncome-tax Act 1922
  Summary & questions settled

  This income-tax reference concerns whether provisions made by an assessee for employee gratuity constitute 'free reserves' subject to income-tax under the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the notification S.R.O. 116(R)/68. The Income-tax Officer had treated these gratuity provisions as 'free reserves' and levied tax, whereas the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held they were ascertained liabilities and not free reserves. The Court examined whether such provisions, created to meet future obligations, fall within the definition of 'free reserves' as defined by the Central Board of Revenue. The Court held that gratuity provisions, when calculated as an accrued liability based on commercial accounting principles, are not 'free reserves' but rather represent ascertained liabilities. The ratio establishes that a provision for gratuity, intended to meet a definite obligation, is a proper charge on the profit and loss account and does not constitute a 'free reserve' for tax purposes. The Court further noted that Section 10(2-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, provides a mechanism to address unpaid trading liabilities, ensuring such funds are not used indefinitely without tax consequences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a provision for employee gratuity constitutes a 'free reserve' under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • Is the list of reserves not qualifying as 'free reserves' in Notification No. S.R.O. 116(R)/68 exhaustive?
  • Can a provision for gratuity be treated as a proper charge on the profit and loss account based on commercial accounting principles?
  • Does Section 10(2-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, apply to unpaid trading liabilities such as gratuity provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Seth Dhanrajmal1985 PTD 324 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs West Pakistan Management1985 PTD 287 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Dawood Corporation Ltd.1985 PTD 799 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Commonwealth Development1985 PTD 155 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messers Guest Keen and Nettles Fold1985 PTD 147 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Kathiawar Co-Op. Housing Society , .1985 PTD 150 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Fazal Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd. , .1985 PTD 445 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (West Zone), Karachi vs Messrs1985 PTD 223 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (East), Karachi vs M.H.Khashwani , .1985 PTD 38 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (East) vs Messrs Crescent Pak Soap & Oil1985 PTD 3 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Karachi vs Messrs Moosa1985 PTD 208 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs Messrs Taj1985 PTD 655 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs Messrs1985 PTD 498 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs Karachi Oil1985 PTD 770 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone) vs Messrs Shahsons1985 PTD 796 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karachi. vs SadruddinPTCL 1985 (CL.) 260 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax vs United AgenciesPTCL 1985 (CL.) 164 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →