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. 232594 judgments in total.
- Mian MUHAMMAD RAFEE vs THE STATE1985 MLD 668 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD LATIF and others vs THE LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST and others1985 CLC 2960 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1936 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mian Muhammad Abdullah against an order of the Lahore High Court concerning the amount of security required for bail. The petitioner, former Managing Director of a defunct Finance Company with substantial liabilities, was directed by the Company Judge to furnish security and deposit his passport. Upon failing to furnish the security, warrants were issued, he was arrested, and subsequently granted bail by the High Court subject to furnishing a heavy surety of Rs.25 lacs. The core legal question concerns the appropriateness and reduction of the excessive bail amount when the accused is unable to arrange sureties. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and, with the consent of the official Liquidator and Additional Advocate-General, held that the interest of the company could be adequately safeguarded by reducing the bail amount while increasing the number of sureties. The Supreme Court accordingly reduced the bail amount to Rs.5 lacs, laying down that excessive bail conditions that impede release may be adjusted to balance the interests of justice and the recovery of dues.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reduce the amount of bail and increase the number of sureties to facilitate the release of an accused who is unable to furnish heavy security?
- Whether the bail amount fixed by the High Court can be modified with the consent of the official liquidator and the state counsel?
- Mian MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL AND 6 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment order passed against a tenant, Mian Muhammad Abdullah, by the Rent Controller, which was upheld by the District Judge. The original landlords sold the property to a new owner, Mian Khalid Saeed, who sought the tenant's eviction on the ground of bona fide personal need. The tenant resisted the eviction, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleading a pending civil suit for specific performance based on an alleged oral agreement to sell, alongside invoking protection under the doctrine of part performance. The core legal questions involved whether a pending suit for specific performance or an oral agreement operates to stay ejectment proceedings, whether section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act applies to oral agreements, and whether an immediate ejectment order can be passed solely upon finding the relationship of landlord and tenant to exist when the sole ground of eviction is personal requirement. The High Court held that a mere pending suit for specific performance does not oust the Rent Controller's jurisdiction, and section 53-A requires a written contract. However, the Court ruled that where eviction is sought solely on personal requirement rather than default, the Rent Controller cannot order immediate ejectment upon establishing tenancy without holding a full inquiry into the bona fide personal need. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the personal requirement issue.
Questions settled- Does the institution of a civil suit for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale operate to stay or bar ejectment proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- Is the protection of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 available in the case of an oral agreement?
- Can a Rent Controller order immediate ejectment of a tenant upon finding the relationship of landlord and tenant to exist when the sole ground for eviction is personal bona fide need, without conducting an inquiry into such need?
- Does a denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant in a case based solely on personal requirement forfeit the tenant's right to an inquiry into the grounds of eviction?
- Mian MEHRAJ DIN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2987 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- MIAN KHAN vs FATEH ALI and 3 others1985 MLD 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
- Mian IJAZ IQBAL vs THE STATE and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 2125 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
- Mian GUL SHAH And Others vs Sayed FARMAN SHAH And Other1985 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL CHATTHA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2209 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mian AIZAD BAKHSH vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD AFZAL1985 SCMR 1003 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing to condone a delay in filing an appeal. The petitioner initially filed an appeal before a District Judge, which was later returned for presentation to the High Court due to a lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal in the correct forum, caused by the counsel's mistaken advice, warranted condonation under the law. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the plea for condonation. The Court held that while a party may rely on counsel, gross ignorance of the law or negligence by counsel does not constitute a valid ground for condoning delay. The key principle laid down is that 'mistaken advice' by a counsel, when amounting to gross negligence or ignorance of clear legal provisions regarding jurisdiction, cannot be successfully urged as a sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing an appeal in the proper forum.
Questions settled- Can a delay in filing an appeal caused by a counsel's gross ignorance of law be condoned?
- Does the filing of an appeal in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction due to counsel's advice constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Is a litigant entitled to condonation of delay based solely on the mistaken advice of their legal counsel?
- Mian ABDUL HAFEEZ vs Mst. FARIDUNNISA1985 SCMR 939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that remanded an ejectment case to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision on issues previously left undecided or erroneously determined. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed the discretion to remand the case rather than deciding it itself, and whether the term 'personal requirement' under the rent laws extends to the needs of a landlord's children regardless of their dependency. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its discretion under Order XLI, Rules 23, 24, and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the appellate court is not mandatorily required to decide all issues itself. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the ground of personal requirement for 'own occupation' under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is not restricted to the landlord alone but extends to the bona fide needs of their children and their dependents. The Court upheld the remand order but modified it to exclude the provision of leading additional evidence, as the parties had already concluded their evidence.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court mandatorily required under Order XLI, Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to decide issues left undetermined by the trial court?
- Does the ground of personal requirement for 'own occupation' under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 extend to the needs of a landlord's children?
- Can the personal requirement of a landlord include the needs of the dependents of the landlord's children?
- Is the appellate court empowered to remand a case to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision when material issues were not decided by the lower courts?
- Messrs. S. KHALID EBRAHIM & CO. vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISING)1985 CLC 2655 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs, GHAFFAR TEXTILE MILLS vs Messrs, V. K. TEXTILE DEPOT1985 MLD 394 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs ZULFIQAR ASSOCIATES Ltd. vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd., FAISALABAD and 2 others1985 MLD 499 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs ZULFIQAR ASSOCIATES Ltd. And Messrs HUDAYBIA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.1985 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a common order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions challenging an interlocutory order passed by a Special Judge (Banking). The respondent bank had filed a recovery suit against the petitioners and others based on a letter of credit issued for the import of machinery by a predecessor company, which was subsequently reconstituted into three separate companies. In their applications for leave to defend the suit under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners expressly admitted liability to the extent of one-third. The Special Judge granted leave to defend but conditioned it upon the deposit of one-third of the suit amount in court. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petitions, holding that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised and not arbitrary or perverse. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's view, holding that the contentions related to the merits of the controversy within the special court's jurisdiction and did not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction, thereby dismissing the petitions.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can make the grant of leave to defend a banking suit subject to the condition of depositing a portion of the suit amount upon an admission of liability?
- Can the High Court interfere in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction with an interlocutory discretionary order of a court of competent jurisdiction regarding leave to defend?
- Messrs ZOR ENGINEERS Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1985 PLC 78 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs ZAID & COMPANY vs MUHAMMAD USMAN1985 PLC 342 · Labour Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs WE BROTHERS Ltd. vs REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LAHORE1985 MLD 196 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs WASEEM TRADERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1985 CLC 2796 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs WASEEM TRADERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Central1985 MLD 484 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs W. WOODWARD (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI vs Miss KHURSHID1985 PLC 1118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS VOLKERVAM (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY1985 PLD Karachi 37 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-04Read full judgment →
- MESSRS VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING Co. Pvt, LTD., AMRAOTI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. POONA , ,1985 PTD 734 · Bombay High Court · 1983-01-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs VASEEM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs PROVINCE OF SIND and 41985 MLD 397 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
- MESSRS UNIVERSAL BRUSHES LTD. vs THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE &1985 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notice issued by the Central Excise Department demanding sales tax on brushes manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that brushes qualified as "hand tools" under the Pakistan Customs Tariff and were therefore exempt from sales tax under the exemption Notification SRO 666(1)/81, dated 25-6-1981, which granted exemptions for certain items falling under Chapter 82. The core legal question was whether brushes, which were previously treated as exempt, fell within the scope of the new exemption notification by implication as "hand tools" under Chapter 82. The Court held that the exemption notification did not cover brushes. It reasoned that the Pakistan Customs Tariff contains a specific entry (96.01) for brushes, distinct from the "hand tools" category in Chapter 82. Applying the principle of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (expressum facit cessare tacitum), the Court determined that since brushes were not expressly mentioned in the exemption notification, they could not be included by implication. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the legality of the tax demand.
Questions settled- Does the exemption for "hand tools" under Chapter 82 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff include brushes by implication?
- Can an item be included in a tax exemption notification by implication when a specific entry for that item exists elsewhere in the statute?
- Does the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius apply to the interpretation of fiscal exemption notifications?
- Messrs UNITED ORIENTAL STEAMSHIP CO. and 2 others vs NATIONAL SHIPPING1985 CLC 1313 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs UNITED BANK Ltd. vs SPACE ADVERTISERS and another1985 CLC 1987 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs SWAT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad1985 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the validity of the levy of Central Excise duty on the basis of production capacity under subsection (4) of section 3 of the Central Excise and Salts Tax Act, 1944, inserted by the Finance Act, 1966. The core legal question involved the challenge to section 3 of the Act as ultra vires regarding the imposition of duty on the basis of capacity and actual production following amendments to the 1962 Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the issues raised were fully covered and settled by a prior common judgment of the Court in Zaibtan Textile Mills Limited v. Central Board of Revenue (PLD 1983 SC 358). The established principle is that matters concerning the constitutional validity of the production capacity tax provisions under the Central Excise and Salts Act stand resolved in accordance with the precedent set in the Zaibtan Textile Mills case.
Questions settled- Whether section 3 of the Central Excise and Salts Tax Act, 1944, providing for the imposition of duty on the basis of production capacity, is ultra vires?
- Does the judgment in Zaibtan Textile Mills Limited v. Central Board of Revenue fully cover and govern challenges to the Central Excise duty levied on production capacity?
- Messrs Sterling Engineering Corporation vs The Collector Of CustomsandPTCL 1985 (CL.) 297 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs SIDDIQ TEXTILES Ltd. vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB And Other1985 SCMR 887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the resumption of state land by the Provincial Government, which had been allotted to the appellant for industrial purposes. The core legal question was whether the delivery of possession to the appellant was unauthorized and whether the government could unilaterally resume the land without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The Supreme Court held that the administrative memoranda issued by the Financial Commissioner, which governed the sale of land for industrial purposes, constituted valid statements of conditions under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. Although the Collector’s delivery of possession technically deviated from the 1959 memorandum's procedural requirements, the Court found that the government’s long-standing acquiescence implied approval. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellant was entitled to procedural fairness. The key principle laid down is that where a party has been placed in possession of land by state authorities and has established an industrial unit, the government cannot summarily resume such land without adhering to the principle of audi alteram partem, regardless of whether specific statutory notice provisions apply.
Questions settled- Can the government summarily resume state land allotted for industrial purposes without providing the allottee an opportunity of hearing?
- Do administrative memoranda issued by the Financial Commissioner regarding land disposal constitute valid statements of conditions under the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912?
- Does the government's long-term acquiescence to a Collector's unauthorized delivery of possession imply approval of the transaction?
- Is a writ petition challenging the resumption of state land barred by delay if filed shortly after the final notice of resumption?
- Messrs SHAMS! INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1985 PTD 192 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs SHAHI BOTTLERS Ltd. vs THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS And Other1985 SCMR 1075 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by a company engaged in manufacturing the beverage R.C. Cola, challenging the classification of imported concentrates used in its preparation. The core legal question is whether these imported concentrates fall under head 21.07 or head 33.04 of the Pakistan Custom Tariff for the purpose of levying sales tax. The High Court determined that the concentrates are covered under head 21.07 as food preparations and flavoring extracts rather than head 33.04 as odoriferous substances, given that they serve as the chief ingredients of the beverage rather than merely imparting a pleasant smell. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan agreed with the reasoning and findings of the High Court, holding that the classification under head 21.07 is correct. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, while granting the petitioner a period of one month to pay the additional sales tax in cash in lieu of encashment of the bank guarantee.
Questions settled- Whether imported beverage concentrates fall under head 21.07 or head 33.04 of the Pakistan Custom Tariff?
- Do beverage concentrates that act as chief ingredients rather than merely imparting odor qualify as odoriferous substances under tariff head 33.04?
- MESSRS SEWBALKRAM & Co., KOHIMA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSAM, NAGALAND MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR AND' TRIPURA1985 PTD 684 · Gujarat High Court · 1983-01-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs S. Ill. SADIQ vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others1985 CLC 2710 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs RIZVI MINNING LTD., ABBOTTABAD vs EMPLOYEES' OLD-AGE BENEFITS1985 PLC 465 · Board of Trustees Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs RICE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs IVTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 340 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs RAVI RAYON Ltd. vs MOHAMMAD SAEED MIR1985 PLC 104 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs RAFI ASSOCIATES Ltd. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Food & Agriculture, Directorate-General of Food, Karachi1985 CLC 721 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs RAFHAN MAIZE vs ABDUL HAFEEZ1985 PLC 145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs QAMARUDDIN AHMAD & CO. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1985 SCMR 1775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a construction contract dispute between a firm and the Government of Pakistan regarding a hospital project. The contract was cancelled by the Government, leading to the forfeiture of the appellant's assets and the imposition of a liability. The dispute was referred to a sole arbitrator, whose award was subsequently made a rule of the court. The appellant challenged the award, alleging procedural irregularities, including the extension of time for the award, the arbitrator's consideration of a C.I.D. report, the denial of evidence production, and failure to determine liability. The Supreme Court examined whether the trial court correctly extended the time for the award under the Arbitration Act, whether the arbitrator committed misconduct by considering external reports, and whether the arbitrator failed to address the merits of the claims. The Court held that the appellant's participation in proceedings after the initial time limit constituted acquiescence, justifying the retrospective extension of time. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of arbitrator misconduct regarding the C.I.D. report or the denial of evidence, affirming the lower courts' findings that the award was based on a proper consideration of the parties' claims and evidence.
Questions settled- Can a court retrospectively extend the time for an arbitrator to make an award under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Does a party's participation in arbitration proceedings after the expiry of the time limit constitute acquiescence to an extension?
- Does the mere production of a document by a party during arguments, without the arbitrator relying on it, constitute misconduct?
- Messrs PREMIER SUGAR MILLS & DISTILLERY COMPANY Ltd., MARDAN vs THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI And Other1985 SCMR 1535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the confiscation of imported centrifugal machines by the Collector of Customs for violating import price restrictions. The appellant, a sugar manufacturing company, imported machinery exceeding the Rs. 10,000 limit set by the import policy, despite holding a license for general machinery. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of Section 167(8)(a) and (b) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and whether the issuance of an import license automatically waives price restrictions imposed under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1950. The Supreme Court held that the price restriction was a valid condition of the license and that the appellant’s import violated the law. The Court rejected the argument that the 'personal use' clauses in Section 167(8) govern all preceding paragraphs, ruling instead that each paragraph is distinct and independent. Consequently, the Court affirmed the confiscation and penalty, holding that the issuance of a license does not inherently waive specific price ceilings established by government notifications, and that the appellant’s contravention was punishable under the Sea Customs Act.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of an import license automatically waive price restrictions imposed by government notifications?
- Are the provisions of Section 167(8)(a) and Section 167(8)(b) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, distinct and independent offenses?
- Do the final paragraphs of Section 167(8)(a) and Section 167(8)(b) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, regarding bona fide personal use, govern all preceding paragraphs in those subsections?
- Can price restrictions on imported goods be considered a 'specified description' under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878?
- Messrs PRE-LOAD CONSTRUCTION vs AHMED TAMIZUDDIN KHAN1985 MLD 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PHILLIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUS roms, 'KARACHI 4ND ANOTHER1985 PTD 777 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs PAKISTAN STATE OILS COMPANY Ltd. vs KHALIL AHMAD ANWAR, RENT1985 SCMR 692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant of commercial premises, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed its constitutional petition challenging the Rent Controller's disposal of preliminary objections. The original landlord, Syeda Qamar Sultana, had initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner on grounds of default, personal requirement, and reconstruction. Following her death, the respondents were impleaded. The petitioner contested the landlord's title and the validity of the proceedings, arguing that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, noting that the ejectment application was pending, evidence remained to be recorded, and no jurisdictional defect existed. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, holding that where a landlord-tenant relationship is admitted, the Rent Controller possesses exclusive jurisdiction to determine all relevant facts and legal issues. The Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory proceedings or challenge interlocutory orders, especially when the Rent Controller is legally empowered to adjudicate the controversy on its merits. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Questions settled- Can a tenant invoke constitutional jurisdiction to challenge a Rent Controller's preliminary order while the main ejectment application is still pending?
- Does the Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and related legal issues?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be used to bypass statutory proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- Messrs PAKISTAN STATE OILS CO. Ltd. vs ABDUL HAKEEM JAGIRANI1985 PLC 280 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs PAKISTAN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. vs SIKANDAR ALI and 21985 MLD 1180 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs PAKISTAN OIL MILLS Ltd., HYDERA BAD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST), KARACHI1985 PTD 320 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES vs Messrs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and another1985 CLC 436 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs PAK COMPANY,SARGODHA vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE1985 SCMR 786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment upholding an Income-tax Officer's assessment and refusal to renew a firm's registration under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal questions were whether the Officer had sufficient material to assume the existence of "dasti books" for 1964, and whether the Officer was legally required to exercise independent discretion regarding the refusal of registration after making a "best judgment" assessment. The Supreme Court held that the finding regarding the existence of books was a question of fact based on evidence, which the Court would not disturb. However, the Court ruled that while "best judgment" assessment is a mandatory consequence of default, the refusal of registration is a separate, punitive, and discretionary act. The Income-tax Officer must apply an independent mind and record reasons for denying registration, rather than treating it as an automatic consequence. Furthermore, the Court established that the proviso to Section 23(4) requiring notice applies to the refusal to renew registration, ensuring procedural fairness. The appeal regarding registration was allowed.
Questions settled- Does a 'best judgment' assessment under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, automatically mandate the refusal or cancellation of a firm's registration?
- Is the refusal to renew a firm's registration under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, a discretionary act requiring the recording of reasons?
- Does the proviso to Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding notice for cancellation of registration apply to the refusal to renew a firm's registration?
- MESSRS PAK ARMY FURNISHING STORES vs Syed ALI AKBAR RIZVI AND 3PLD L 985 Karachi 201 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian ALl NAWAZ AND 20 OTHERS vs MAUD HUSSAIN AND 28 OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 1 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PACKAGES LTD. vs AFZAAL HUSSAIN ZAIDI1985 PLC 725 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NOVITAS INTERNATIONAL vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER (FILM CIRCLE) AND OTHERS ,1985 PTD 411 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs NEW SNOW-WHITE DRY CLEANERS vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EAST, KARACHI1985 PTD 315 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE Co. Ltd. vs ENQU IRY OFFICER, WAR RISKS1985 SCMR 1317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by Messrs New Jubilee Insurance Company challenged a High Court judgment dismissing its constitutional petition against notices issued by the Inquiry Officer, War Risks Insurance, under the War Risks Insurance Ordinance, 1971. The Inquiry Officer sought to determine the insurable value of the appellant's building at forty times its gross annual rental value pursuant to rule 7(a) read with Explanation I(iv) of the War Risks Insurance Rules, 1971. The core legal questions were whether the formula of forty times the annual rental value for determining the insurable value of a building was ultra vires the parent ordinance and unreasonable, and whether the allowance for depreciation under rule 7(a) applied to completed buildings. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that insurance contracts are based on the fundamental principle of indemnity and that the arbitrary formula of forty times rental value had no nexus with the actual insurable value of the property, rendering it ultra vires and unreasonable. The Court further held that the allowance for depreciation applies to completed buildings as well as those under construction.
Questions settled- Whether the formula prescribing forty times the annual rental value for determining the insurable value of a building under the War Risks Insurance Rules, 1971 is ultra vires the parent statute?
- Is a contract of insurance fundamentally a contract of indemnity limited to the actual loss sustained by the insured?
- Does the allowance for depreciation under rule 7(a) of the War Risks Insurance Rules, 1971 apply to completed buildings or solely to buildings under construction?
- Can punctuation in a statutory provision be ignored or subordinated to achieve a reasonable and consistent interpretation that avoids absurdity?
- Messrs NATIONAL REFINERY LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1985 PLC 459 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Mst. PERVEEN AKHTAR1985 PLD Karachi 60 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs NARUMAL JETOMAL And Another vs SPECIAL COURT OF SIND And Other1985 SCMR 2032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the jurisdiction of a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioners, whose rice mill and pledged paddy stocks were nationalized by the Government, faced a recovery suit filed by the respondent bank regarding a cash credit facility. The petitioners contended that the suit was incompetent before the Special Court, arguing that the Rice Milling Corporation of Pakistan and the Government were necessary parties who should have been the primary defendants. The Supreme Court observed that the legal points raised by the petitioners, particularly regarding the competency of the suit under the special provisions of the Banking Ordinance given the involvement of nationalized entities, warranted further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Special Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the recovery suit under the circumstances presented.
Questions settled- Is a suit for recovery of a cash credit facility competent before a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, when the underlying pledged assets were nationalized?
- Does the involvement of the Rice Milling Corporation of Pakistan and the Government as necessary parties affect the jurisdiction of a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Messrs MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES1985 CLC 178 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs MUHAMMAD AMIN MUHAMMAD BASHIR Ltd. vs Messrs KHAIRPUR1985 CLC 1398 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs MOONLITE (PAK) Ltd. vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 4 others1985 CLC 1901 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs MILLWALA SONS LTD. vs THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Secretary, Housing Town, Planning Local Government, Karachi and another1985 MLD 573 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS MIAN BROTHERS AND 3 OTHERS vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MULTAN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 562 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs MAQBOOL COMPANY LIMITED vs ABDUL GHAFFAR and others1985 CLC 2635 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs MAQBOOL & CO. Ltd. vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI1985 PTD 36 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD. vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1985 PLC 816 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs MAIRAJ SONS And Others And vs UNITED BANK Ltd. And Other1985 SCMR 987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a banking recovery suit instituted by United Bank Ltd. against the petitioners for the recovery of Rs. 96,30,854.77 under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioners filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit, alleging that documents were obtained under undue influence and in blank forms, and that adequate security via equitable mortgage already existed. The trial court granted conditional leave to defend subject to the deposit of the entire decretal amount in cash, which condition was upheld by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the condition imposing a cash deposit for granting leave to defend was justified despite existing mortgaged properties, and whether interest formed part of the 'loan' under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's discretionary order requiring cash deposit as a condition for leave to defend was not illegal or misconceived given the disputed sufficiency of securities, and declined to interfere with the concurrent findings. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can validly impose a condition of cash deposit for granting leave to defend a banking recovery suit when properties are already mortgaged?
- Does the definition of 'loan' under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 include interest or is it confined solely to the principal amount?
- Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with a discretionary order of the trial court requiring a cash deposit for granting leave to defend?
- Messrs MACKINNO N MACKENZIE AND COMPANY vs THE COMMISSIONER OF1985 PTD 199 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS M. E. J. HAZARI AND SONS vs THE COM MISSIONF.P OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI1985 PTD 516 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS LASSANI BROTHERS vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX AND oTHERss1985 PLD Supreme Court 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's application under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law by dismissing the reference application without answering the referred question of law regarding the sustainability of a penalty imposed under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court committed no infirmity or misapprehension, as the appellant's counsel had failed to press or question the power to impose the penalty before the High Court, and a court cannot be expected to decide a referred question not urged before it. The key principle laid down is that the High Court is not bound to answer a question of law in a reference application if the party concerned chooses not to press or argue the same during the hearing.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is required to answer a question of law in a reference application when the party concerned does not press or argue the point before it?
- Whether an application under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 can be dismissed if the counsel fails to question the imposition of penalty during the hearing?
- Messrs KHUDA BAKHSH & Bros. vs NAZIR AHMAD and 40 others1985 PLC 501 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KHAYAL MUHAMMAD & SoNs vs CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHELUM AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 545 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a public auction where the right to collect octroi income for the Jhelum Municipality was leased to the petitioner, Messrs Khayal Mohammad & Sons. A dispute arose when respondent No. 4, Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited, evaded paying octroi directly to the lessee, prompting the Taxation Officer of the Municipal Committee to assess actual octroi and a composition fee. Respondent No. 4 appealed this demand, and the appeal was accepted by a councillor exercising delegated powers of the Chairman. The core legal question was whether an appeal against a taxation order is competent under the Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, when the collection of octroi has been leased out, and whether the Chairman could delegate such powers. The Lahore High Court held that rule 226 of the Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, explicitly bars the application of appeal provisions (rule 216) in municipalities where octroi collection is leased. Consequently, the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction, and the impugned appellate order was declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against an assessment made by a Taxation Officer is competent under the Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, where the collection of octroi in a municipality has been leased out?
- Can a Chairman of a Municipal Committee validly delegate his statutory powers of hearing appeals under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a delegation of powers made 'till further orders' under section 170(3) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, automatically lapse upon the return of the Chairman from abroad?
- Messrs KHAWAJA BROTHERS LAHORE And Another vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1985 SCMR 1915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs KHAIR MUHAMMAD Brothers vs PAKISTAN Through Airport Manager, Karachi Airport And 14 Other1985 SCMR 1785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Sind High Court which dismissed the petitioner's Letters Patent Appeal and upheld the decree passed against them for the recovery of rent due under a contract. The core legal question involved the interpretation of a contract concerning the operation of a restaurant and rest house at the Karachi Airport, specifically whether the petitioner's obligation to pay rent was contingent upon the Government's performance of an undertaking regarding exclusive aircraft supplies and passenger accommodation by airlines. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly interpreted the terms of the contract, finding that the covenant of payment by the petitioner was absolute and unqualified, and that the contract did not bind third-party airlines to source exclusively from the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that unambiguous contractual obligations cannot be treated as mutually dependent without clear contractual language to that effect.
Questions settled- Whether the obligation to pay rent under a commercial contract can be treated as contingent upon the performance of a separate clause without explicit contractual language?
- Are third-party airlines bound by the terms of a contract executed solely between the Government and a caterer to which they were not parties?
- Messrs KAPUR & CO. (PAKISTAN) Ltd. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL II AND OTHERS1985 PTD 574 · Calcutta High Court · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs KAMLEEM CLOTH MARKET and 11 others vs GOOL BAI SHORABJI S.1985 CLC 2423 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs INTERNATIONAL EXPERT TRA DERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1985 MLD 322 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs INDUSTRIAL MINING ENTERPRISES, KARACHI and another vs INDUSTRIAL MINERAL CORPORATION Ltd1985 MLD 181 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs INDUS TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, HYDERABAD vs Messrs INDUS TEXTILE1985 PLC 1042 · Labour Court · 1985-08-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs ILAM DIN ABDUL REHMAN KARYANA MERCHANTS, Represented By Abdul Sattar And Another vs Master SARDAR ELAHI1985 SCMR 1914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment proceeding instituted by the respondent against the petitioner, claiming to be the transferee of the disputed property by auction. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application upon finding that the property had not been transferred to the respondent and that no statutory tenancy existed, which findings were upheld in first appeal. In second appeal, the High Court held that the property had been transferred to the respondent, though it agreed that no landlord-tenant relationship existed and thus the ejectment application was rightly dismissed. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, grievance being that the High Court should not have disturbed the concurrent finding of fact regarding title. After hearing counsel, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court erred in disturbing the concurrent finding of fact on title in second appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in second appeal can disturb a concurrent finding of fact regarding title?
- Is an ejectment application maintainable in the absence of a contractual or statutory relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Messrs IDEAL DEPARTMENT STORES vs UNITED BANK Ltd.1985 CLC 2559 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ICI MANUFACTURERS LTD., SHEIKHUPURA vs SAFDAR MAHMOOD AND 226 OTHERS1985 PLC 832 · Income Tax Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MESSRS ICI MANUFACTURERS LTD., SHEIKHUPURA vs ICI POLYESTER EMPLOYEES'1985 PLC 820 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Messrs I SONS CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ CHEEMA, ADDITIONAL1985 MLD 1627 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs HUMAYUN Ltd. vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance1985 CLC 304 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-16Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DHAKA NORTH ZONE, DHAKA1985 PTD 820 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1984-07-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs HOMES LIMITED, Karachis vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX1985 SCMR 1801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal, which, upon agreement of the learned counsel for the parties, was converted into an appeal. The core question involved the interim relief pending the final disposal of a constitutional petition relating to an income tax demand. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and directed that the impugned demand from the appellant-company be held in abeyance pending the final disposal of Constitution Petition No. 727-D of 1984. This relief is subject to the appellant furnishing a bank guarantee for 50 percent of the demand and executing security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the High Court within one month. The Court laid down the principle that interim protection against tax demands can be granted upon furnishing adequate security and bank guarantees pending constitutional proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an interim order of the High Court can be substituted by consent of the parties in the Supreme Court?
- What conditions may be imposed for holding a tax demand in abeyance pending a constitutional petition?
- Is a bank guarantee required to be unconditionally encashable if the underlying constitutional petition is dismissed?
- Messrs HO SULEMAN GOWAWALA & Sons Ltd. vs USMAN and 13 others1985 CLC 132 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HIRA LAL & SONS vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I-(2), MEERUT , .1985 PTD 521 · Allahabad High Court · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs HAND TOOLS LTD. (SAADAT INDUSTRIES LTD.) vs KARACHI1985 CLC 529 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs HAJI USMAN TAYAB & Sons vs The COMMISSIONER OF 1NCOME-TAX1985 PTD 32 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Haji MAULA BAKHSH & Sonss vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS And Another1985 SCMR 1547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the confiscation of imported glass sheets by Customs authorities due to alleged non-compliance with the weight, thickness, and value specifications stipulated in the import license issued under the Export Bonus Scheme. The appellants challenged the confiscation orders, arguing that the goods did not violate the relevant Public Notice and that the cause of action for the second lot of goods was distinct from the first lot, which had been the subject of a previously dismissed writ petition. The core legal question was whether the principle of res judicata or the bar against filing successive writ petitions on the same facts precluded the appellants from maintaining the current petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the appellants could not raise different pleas at different times to file multiple writ petitions on the same facts. Affirming the principle that res judicata applies to writ petitions, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellants were barred from re-litigating the matter.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata apply to successive writ petitions filed on the same facts?
- Can a petitioner raise different pleas at different times to file multiple writ petitions on the same cause of action?
- Are goods imported in violation of the description specified in an import license subject to confiscation under the Sea Customs Act?
- Messrs HAJI E. DOOSA & SONS Ltd. vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX1985 SCMR 2030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning a claim for refund of sales tax paid on gunny bags used as packing material for the export of guar-gum for the assessment year 1960-61. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the refund claim, but the Assistant Commissioner and subsequently the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, relying on instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue. Upon a reference application, the High Court answered the question of law in the negative against the assessee, following a precedent of the Supreme Court. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court arguing that the High Court failed to consider the binding nature of the Central Board of Revenue instructions exempting packing material used in exported goods. The Supreme Court held that the points raised regarding the exemption granted by the Central Board of Revenue deserved consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether packing material such as gunny bags qualifies as partly manufactured goods under section 2(12) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
- Whether sales tax paid on packing material used for exported goods is refundable under the relevant exemption notifications and Central Board of Revenue instructions?
- MESSRS HAFIZ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs BAKHAT AMIN1985 PLC 976 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HABIB INSURANCE CO. LTD.s vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX1985 PLD Supreme Court 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the assessee, an insurance company, examined whether the High Court of Sind correctly interpreted section 10(7) of the Income-tax Act read with rules 3 and 6 of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act regarding the taxability of appreciation in book value of investments and realization from sold properties. The appellant contended that since the investments were made out of initial subscribed capital rather than insurance premium income, and the company acted as an ordinary investor, the resulting appreciation and capital gains were not profits derived from the business of insurance and thus not chargeable to tax under the First Schedule. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant carried on no other business except insurance, all its assets, incomes, and gains were relatable to the insurance business. Consequently, pursuant to section 10(7) of the Income-tax Act, tax computation must be based on the annual accounts furnished under the Insurance Act in accordance with the self-contained provisions of the First Schedule, which explicitly include appreciation and realization gains on investments. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether appreciation in the book value of investments and realization from properties sold by an insurance company are chargeable to tax under section 10(7) of the Income-tax Act read with rules 3 and 6 of the First Schedule?
- Do assets and investments acquired from the initial subscribed capital of an insurance company fall outside the scope of the insurance business for tax purposes?
- Whether notional appreciation in the value of assets can be treated as income and charged to tax under the First Schedule of the Income-tax Act?
- Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. vs Messrs KAYCEE CORPORATION PROPRIETARY FIRM1985 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that refused to treat a suit as a summary matter under Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a suit based on a promissory note loses its summary character when the plaint references underlying accounts and collateral security. The Supreme Court held that the High Court took an overly narrow view. The Court ruled that a suit based on a promissory note remains maintainable under Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, even if the plaint references collateral security or accounts, as these details merely establish the consideration for the note. Consequently, the respondent's failure to apply for leave to defend within the prescribed ten-day period meant they were precluded from contesting the suit, as Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 does not apply to such procedural defaults. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, affirming that the suit was properly framed under summary procedure.
Questions settled- Does a suit based on a promissory note lose its summary character under Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaint references underlying accounts and collateral security?
- Can a defendant apply for leave to defend a summary suit after the expiration of the ten-day period prescribed by Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit?
- Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. vs IBRAR AHMAD1985 PLC 336 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs GUL AHMAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES1985 PTD 211 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court upon an application filed under section 17(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, by the applicants challenging the levy of sales tax on cotton yarn manufactured and consumed within the mill in the integrated production of 'Mazari' cloth, which was subsequently exported and thus exempted from sales tax. The core legal question is whether partly manufactured goods, such as cotton yarn, incorporated into an exempted end-product by the manufacturer are subject to sales tax under section 3(6)(d) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, as goods used by the manufacturer and not for sale. The Full Bench of the High Court held that section 3(6)(d) operates as a charging provision for partly manufactured goods consumed in the production of an article that is exempt from sales tax, following the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Noorani Cotton Corporation. The court concluded that the Sales Tax Officer was legally justified in levying sales tax on the value of the yarn contained in the exported cloth, and answered the referred question in the affirmative.
Questions settled- Whether section 3(6)(d) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 acts as a charging provision for partly manufactured goods consumed by the manufacturer in the production of another article?
- Is cotton yarn produced and incorporated into the manufacture of Mazari cloth liable to sales tax when the finished cloth is exempted from sales tax?
- Does the term 'use' in section 3(6)(d) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 cover goods assimilated or incorporated into another product during an integrated manufacturing process?
- Messrs GRINDLAYS BANK Ltd. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1985 PTD 329 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs GILANI TIMBER MART vs Messrs FATEH TIMBER MART1985 CLC 1316 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →