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.
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs ABDUR RAHIM1985 PLC 808 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another vs AKBAR ALI1985 PLC 199 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KHANEWAL vs SHAZAD GUL1985 PLC 506 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 437 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI AND OTHERS vs WALI MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 962 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS SUKKUR AND 2 OTHERS vs KHUDA BUX1985 PLC 870 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS MULTAN AND OTHERS vs RAFI-UD-DIN1985 PLC 839 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAIL WAYS, RAWALPINDI vs ABDUL1985 PLC 701 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, QUETTA vs MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 1090 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND ANOTHERS vs FARIDUDDIN, U. D. C., DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, QUETTA AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 234 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-23Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1985 PLC 520 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE vs KAZIM1985 PLC 492 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE SADAR DEPOT, LAHORE vs SARFRAZ KHAN1985 PLC 812 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE D. G. KHAN and ANOTHER vs Sh. MA NZOOR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 809 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIRECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION. MINISTRY OF INTERIOR GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR1985 PLC 823 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE MECHANIZATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1985 PLC 850 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 833 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD and others vs Mst. SULTAN BIBI1985 CLC 2536 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1946 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
- DILMIR KHAN vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES1985 PLC 724 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
- DILLOO and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 736 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- DILKUSHA ENTERPRISES Ltd. vs ABDUL RASHID And Other1985 SCMR 1882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld a Labour Court's order for the recovery of back benefits. The petitioner, a company, contested the Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance to compute and award salary for the period of non-reinstatement, and argued that the burden of proving the worker was not gainfully employed elsewhere rested on the worker. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court possesses the authority under Section 51(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance to compute the money value of the benefit of reinstatement, which includes the salary the worker would have earned. Furthermore, the Court established that the burden of proving a worker was gainfully employed elsewhere lies with the employer, as the worker cannot be expected to prove the negative fact of non-employment. The Court also clarified that Section 51 proceedings are not restricted to the Appellate Tribunal. The petition was dismissed, affirming the finality of the underlying orders.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving that a worker was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of dismissal lie on the worker or the employer?
- Can a Labour Court compute and order the recovery of salary as a money value for the benefit of reinstatement under Section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Are proceedings under Section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for the recovery of money due under a Labour Court decision exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal?
- DILDAR HUSSAIN NAYYAR vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD DAR And Another1985 SCMR 1769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that remanded eviction proceedings to the appellate authority. The core legal question was whether a landlord is legally restricted from seeking the simultaneous eviction of tenants from multiple shops based on personal need, and whether a court can arbitrarily limit such a claim to a single shop. The Supreme Court held that there is no legal compulsion restricting a landlord's claim to a single shop; rather, the landlord's requirement must be determined objectively based on the nature of the business and the specific needs presented. The Court affirmed that while the landlord has the choice to seek multiple shops, the Rent Controller and appellate authority must pragmatically ascertain the bona fide nature and extent of that need through evidence. The Court refused leave to appeal, noting that the remand order allows the tenants to challenge the landlord's bona fides and the sufficiency of the claimed need before the appellate authority.
Questions settled- Can a landlord simultaneously seek the eviction of tenants from multiple shops on the ground of personal need?
- Is a Rent Controller or appellate authority legally compelled to restrict a landlord's claim for personal need to a single shop?
- Does the law require a landlord to have prior business experience before seeking eviction for personal need?
- DILDAR ALI vs MESSRS GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LTD, KARACHI1985 PLC 1003 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
- DILAWAR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1723 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- DIDAR SHAH vs Ch. GHULAM HAIDER (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs And Another1985 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 4 October 1978, which allowed a second appeal and ordered the ejectment of the appellant and another from a disputed house in Quetta. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to consider whether the pleas of reconstruction and personal use are mutually destructive of each other in rent matters. The Supreme Court noted that this precise question had already been settled by previous binding precedents of the Court, specifically holding that the pleas of reconstruction and personal use are not mutually destructive of each other. Consequently, finding no merit in the contentions raised, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs, thereby affirming the settled legal position that a landlord may validly raise both grounds concurrently in ejectment proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the pleas of reconstruction and personal use are mutually destructive of each other in rent ejectment cases?
- Can a landlord simultaneously seek eviction of a tenant on the grounds of personal use and reconstruction of the rented premises?
- DHUNDOO and others vs KUNDAN and others1985 CLC 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
- DHUMAN And Others vs GHULAM SARWAR And Other1985 SCMR 947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' regular second appeal and their application for additional evidence. The core legal question concerns the determination of the last male-holder for succession purposes and whether remoteness or closeness of relationship among residuaries under Sunni Law affects their share in inheritance. The Supreme Court held that the succession opens upon the date of the death of the last male-holder, and proximity in degree to the last male-holder at that specific time determines priority in inheritance among collaterals. The Court affirmed that under Sunni Law, the table of residuaries dictates that closeness of relationship is indeed consequential in determining the devolution of inheritance. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Questions settled- When does succession open for the purpose of determining the inheritance of collaterals from a last male-holder?
- Does the closeness or remoteness of relationship among residuaries under Sunni Law affect their right to inheritance?
- Can additional documents be admitted at the second appeal stage when counsel fails to support the appeal on the existing record?
- DHARIA and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1364 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- DHANI BUX vs CHHAJOO KHAN1985 MLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- DEWAN KHAN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN And Other1985 SCMR 575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal regarding the transfer of urban property under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the findings of fact made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner—specifically regarding the respondents' submission of transfer applications and their possession of the disputed property—were legally sustainable. The petitioner, a non-claimant in possession of part of the property, challenged the transfer to the respondents, who were claimants. The Supreme Court observed that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had relied on valid evidence, including a certificate confirming the respondents' application and findings that the respondents held possession through a licensee. The High Court had previously upheld these findings, noting the petitioner's failure to rebut the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that findings of fact based on material evidence cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction when the petitioner fails to produce contrary proof. The principle laid down is that factual findings supported by record evidence are not subject to reappraisal in constitutional jurisdiction absent compelling evidence to the contrary.
Questions settled- Can findings of fact made by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction when supported by evidence?
- Does a claimant have preference over a non-claimant in the transfer of indivisible urban property under settlement law?
- Is possession through a licensee sufficient to establish possession for the purpose of property transfer under settlement law?
- DEPUTY DIRECTOR (P) AVIATION DIVISION and another vs LIAQAT ALI and another1985 PLC 89 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-First Party vs Raja AMIR ZAMAN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 385 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-23Read full judgment →
- DELAY KHAN AND 6 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD YAMAHA LTD. AND ANOTHER vs TARIQ MUNIR CHEEMA1985 PLC 866 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-07Read 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 →
- DAWOOD AND 3 OTHERss vs JAMILUR REHAMAN1985 PLD Quetta 29 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-09-15Read full judgment →
- DAUD And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a violent sectarian clash at a mosque in Multan, which resulted in fatalities and injuries on both sides. The incident led to multiple criminal proceedings, with various parties convicted or acquitted by the trial court and the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed several petitions: one by the convicts Daud and Suleman challenging their convictions; one by Mehraj Din challenging the acquittal of Hameed and Siddique; and one by Sultan Muhammad seeking the enhancement of sentences for Daud and Suleman. Additionally, the Court considered an appeal by Karam Din against his conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts correctly applied the established principles regarding the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, particularly in the context of cross-cases involving sectarian violence. The Court held that the petitions presented a fit case for granting leave to appeal to re-examine the evidence and the application of criminal law principles. Consequently, the Court granted leave in all petitions and ordered that all appeals be heard together.
Questions settled- Does the occurrence of a violent incident between two rival sectarian groups in cross-cases necessitate a re-examination of evidence by the Supreme Court?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal when there are conflicting findings by lower courts regarding the culpability of parties in cross-cases?
- Should multiple appeals arising from the same criminal incident between the same parties be heard together by the Supreme Court?
- DATOO KHAN AND OTHERS vs Mst. BIBI MARIUM AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 168 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1974-07-02Read full judgment →
- DAROON RUBBER WORKS INDUSTRIES Ltd. (through Managing Director) vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 4 others1985 PTD 278 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- DADU SUGAR MILLS, DADU vs NOOR AHMAD PANHWAR1985 PLC 290 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-10Read 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 →
- CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR and others1985 MLD 143 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
- Crescent Textile Mills Ltd., Sargodha Road, Faisalabad. vs Deputy CollectorPTCL 1985 (CL.) 248 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS AND DISTILLERY LTD., FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 775 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS AND DISTILLERY LTD. FAISALABAD vs MUMTAZ MOHY-1985 PLC 777 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS Ltd. vs INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES and others1985 PTD 30 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT FACTORIES VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS AND 5 OTHERS vs NATIONAL1985 PLD Lahore 150 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an interlocutory order of the Special Court Banking, which granted the petitioners conditional leave to defend a recovery suit subject to depositing the entire suit amount in court under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners contended that the condition was harsh, arbitrary, and defeated their right of defence, especially since they had raised fundamental jurisdictional issues. The respondents argued that the order was interlocutory, discretionary, and non-appealable under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, and thus could not be bypassed via constitutional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction against non-appealable interlocutory orders defeats and deflects the clear legislative intent of expeditious disposal under special laws. The Court further noted that since the main suit and a pending review petition had been transferred to the High Court's original jurisdiction, the petitioners could seek their remedy through the pending review.
Questions settled- Can an interlocutory order that is explicitly non-appealable under a special statute be challenged through the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does the imposition of a condition of cash deposit for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute an excess of jurisdiction amenable to writ jurisdiction?
- Whether invoking constitutional jurisdiction to bypass statutory bars on interlocutory appeals defeats and deflects the legislative intent of a special recovery law?
- CRESCENT BOARDS Ltd., Lahore vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE VIII, LAHORE1985 PTD 276 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
- COOPER ENGINEERING Ltd. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1985 PTD 53 · Bombay High Court · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
- CONTROLLER, TELEGRAPH STORES, LAHORE and another vs MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 247 (2) · Labour Appellate TribunalRead 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 WEALTH TAX, MADRAS vs K.S.N.-'BHATTA1985 PTD 350 · Supreme Court of India · 1983-10-20Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, M. P. II, BHOPAL vs MESSRS KEKATPURE1985 PTD 711 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs VIDYAVATHI K APU1985 PTD 629 · karnataka High Court · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME-TAX vs ABDUL AZIZ , _1985 PTD 396 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1984-03-22Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF TAXES vs GHAUS-I-PAK-I-AZAM WELFARE TRUST1985 PTD 341 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1984-02-05Read 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, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE vs S. MUHAMMAD DIN1985 SCMR 1940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order passed by the Lahore High Court. The petition was filed with a significant delay of 954 days. The petitioner sought to exclude the time spent pursuing an application for a certificate of fitness to appeal, which had been filed under the Income Tax Act and subsequently refused. The core legal question was whether the period spent prosecuting an incompetent application for a certificate of fitness could be excluded from the period of limitation for filing the petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the application for the certificate was incompetent and the petitioner did not challenge the correctness of that determination, the time spent pursuing it could not be excluded for the purposes of limitation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred. The judgment affirms that time spent pursuing an incompetent legal remedy cannot be excluded when calculating the limitation period for an appeal.
Questions settled- Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent application for a certificate of fitness be excluded from the limitation period for filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal filed with a delay of 954 days maintainable if the delay is attributed to an incompetent application for a certificate of fitness?
- 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 · 1984-05-10Read full judgment →
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?
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax Zone-A, Lahore. vs M/S. Chenab Textile MillsPTCL 1985 (CL.) 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax Zone, A-Lahore vs New AL-Fateh ChemicalPTCL 1985 (CL.) 226 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX vs Messrs ZALIN Ltd.1985 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This certificated appeal arose from a judgment of the West Pakistan High Court in a Civil Reference under the Sales Tax Act 1951, which had allowed the respondent-assessee (a hotel operator) a refund of excess sales tax paid for the assessment years 1952-53 and 1954-55. The revenue department appealed, contending that because the assessee had already collected the tax from its customers, it was not entitled to a refund. During the pendency of the appeal, Section 30-A was inserted into the Sales Tax Act 1951, requiring any person who collected excess tax to pay it to the Central Government. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the pendency of the appeal destroyed the finality of the High Court's judgment, making the case subject to the retrospective application of Section 30-A. The Court ruled that an assessee who collects excess tax from customers acts merely as an agent and cannot claim a refund for personal retention. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court destroy the finality of a High Court judgment so as to subject the matter to newly enacted retrospective legislation?
- Can an assessee claim a refund of excess sales tax under Section 27 of the Sales Tax Act 1951 if the tax was actually collected from its customers?
- What is the legal effect of Section 30-A of the Sales Tax Act 1951 on claims for refund of excess tax collected from consumers?
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax (East), Karachi. vs Philips Electrical Industries, KarachiPTCL 1985 (CL.) 498 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOMF-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH-II, BHOPAL vs MESSRS1985 PTD 709 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUZAFFARABAD vs Messrs UNITED BUILDERS1985 CLC 1102 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-01-02Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TAMIL NADU-IV vs 0. P. N. ARUNACHALA1985 PTD 583 · Madras High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TAMIL NADU vs SIMPSON & Co. LTD.1985 PTD 519 · Madras High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs MESSRS DEVI FILMS (P) LTD., MADRAS T. C1985 PTD 715 · Madras High Court · 1981-11-20Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs Mesas JAYASHANKAR TRADERS, MADRAS1985 PTD 808 · Madras High Court · 1982-02-25Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE vs MESSRS NOON SUGAR MILLS LTD.1985 PTD 698 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI vs MESSRS SHENNIHEN STEAMSHIP1985 PLD Supreme Court 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an income tax assessment dispute concerning a non-resident foreign shipping company for the assessment year 1956-57. The Income-tax Officer had calculated the company's taxable income under the second method of Rule 33 of the Income-tax Rules, which determines Pakistan profits based on the ratio of Pakistan freight receipts to world freight receipts. However, the officer disallowed initial and additional depreciation on ships that were registered outside Pakistan and not first installed or plied in Pakistani waters. The High Court, affirming the decisions of the appellate authorities, held that such depreciation was permissible. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, ruling that under the second method of Rule 33, the world income of a non-resident must be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922, including all allowances under Section 10(2). The Court held that prior to the 1967 amendment, the phrase 'not having previously been used in Pakistan has been installed' did not require the physical installation of the ships in Pakistan to qualify for depreciation.
Questions settled- Whether initial and additional depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act 1922 can be allowed for ships registered outside Pakistan and not installed in Pakistan prior to the 1967 amendment?
- How is the world income of a non-resident shipping company to be computed under the second method of Rule 33 of the Income-tax Rules?
- Does the application of Rule 33 of the Income-tax Rules require the entire world business of a non-resident assessee to be subjected to the provisions of the Income-tax Act 1922?
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI vs MESSRS PAKISTAN SECURITY1985 PTD 413 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
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?
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY-III vs MESSRS SHANTILAL PVT.1985 PTD 722 · Supreme Court of India · 1983-07-21Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY-I vs DESMET (INDIA) PVT. Ltd.1985 PTD 121 · Bombay High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR, PATNA vs MESSRS KALYANI1985 PTD 592 · Patna High Court · 1983-03-31Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR vs MESSRS PAAMANAND MAKHAN LAL, CHAIBASA1985 PTD 838 · Patna High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs WORKSHOP TRUST1985 PTD 588 · Madras High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs Seth DHANRAJMAL1985 PTD 324 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs POPULAR METAL WORKS AND ROLLING1985 PTD 136 · Bombay High Court · 1982-03-02Read 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 GOUREPORE Co. Ltd.1985 PTD 41 · Calcutta High Court · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs GILLANDERS ARBOTHNOT &1985 PTD 94 · Calcutta High Court · 1981-06-23Read 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 vs ASSAM OIL Co. Ltd.1985 PTD 123 · Calcutta High Court · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VIDARBHA AND MARATHWADA, NAGPUR vs UNITED TRANSPORT CO. PRIVATE LTD., AKOLA ,1985 PTD 596 · Bombay High Court · 1983-01-13Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX A. P. II, HYDERABAD vs MESSRS ANANTHARAM1985 PTD 523 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1982-12-31Read 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 →