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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• M/s. United Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2022 SHC 42 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-24
  trans-provincial establishmentreinstatementback benefitsdiscriminatory dismissalworkman statusNIRC jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged concurrent findings by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which reinstated a bank employee dismissed for alleged misconduct. The petitioner-bank argued that the NIRC lacked jurisdiction, the employee was not a "workman," and the dismissal was justified. The High Court examined whether the NIRC, as a forum for trans-provincial establishments, correctly exercised jurisdiction and whether the dismissal violated the principle of non-discrimination. The Court held that the NIRC possessed the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. On merits, the Court affirmed the findings that the dismissal was discriminatory, noting that other employees involved in the same incident received only minor punishments, violating Article 25 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the status of a "workman" is determined by the nature of duties rather than designation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that concurrent findings of fact by competent fora, absent material illegality, are not subject to interference under Article 199. The judgment emphasizes that back benefits are not automatic but depend on the employee's assertion of not being gainfully employed elsewhere.

  Questions settled

  • Does the NIRC have jurisdiction to adjudicate grievance petitions involving trans-provincial establishments?
  • Is the status of an employee as a 'workman' determined by their official designation or the nature of their duties?
  • Can an employer be estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of a forum if they participated in the proceedings without objection?
  • Are back benefits automatically granted upon the reinstatement of an employee whose dismissal was set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Town Crier (Pvt) Ltd., Sargodha Road Faisalabad vs The CirPTCL 2022 CL. 761 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• M/s. Telematics Master (Pvt.) Ltd through Chief Operating Officer vs M/s.2022 MLD 1961 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Tahir Food Products vs Federation of Pakistan & 06 others2022 SHC 96 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sohail Steel GL Sheet Company, Deewana Baba Road, Buner2022 PHC 486 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Sikandar & Co. vs Federation of Pakistan & two others.2022 SHC 308, 2024 PTD 188 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sieyuan-Neie-Naeem & Company through duly Authorized Office vs2022 PLJ Islamabad 16 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Sakrand Sugar Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 SHC 9 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Reliance Insurance Company Limited vs M/s Ahsan Ikram Textile2022 LHC 3939 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Rachna Super Store, Faisalabad vs The Cir Rto, FaisalabadPTCL 2022 CL. 705 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Peshawar Electricity Supply Company (PESCO), WAPDA House, ShamiPTCL 2022 CL. 817 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-09-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Peshawar Electricity Supply Company (PESCO), Peshawar vs The Cir,PTCL 2022 CL. 164 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-02-07Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited vs Federation of Pakistan throughPTCL 2022 CL. 202, 2022 PTD 1574 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-08
  tax auditincome taxsales taxfederal exciseFBR directivessectoral auditdiscretionary powersconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions impugning notices for tax audits issued under section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and section 46 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005. The core legal questions relate to whether the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) can issue binding directives forcing Commissioners to undertake sectoral audits, whether the Commissioner's power to select a taxpayer for audit under section 177(1) is independent of FBR's powers under section 214C, and whether audit selection under section 25 of the Sales Tax Act is a two-stage process. The Islamabad High Court held that FBR lacks the authority under section 206 or any other provision to direct Commissioners to conduct sectoral audits or fetter their independent discretion under section 177(1), rendering audit notices issued pursuant to such FBR directives unlawful and void. The Court further held that the Commissioner's audit selection powers under section 177(1) are independent of FBR's powers under section 214C, and that section 25 of the Sales Tax Act does not mandate a rigid two-stage process requiring prior scrutiny before issuing an audit notice. The key principles laid down emphasize that statutory discretions vested in tax authorities cannot be controlled or usurped by external directives, and audit selection notices based on extraneous FBR instructions are liable to be set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Board of Revenue can issue binding directives to Commissioners to initiate sectoral audits under section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Are the audit selection powers of the Commissioner under section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 independent of the powers of the Federal Board of Revenue under section 214C?
  • Does section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 contemplate a mandatory two-stage process where record must be summoned and scrutinized before an audit notice can be issued?
  • Whether an audit notice issued by a Commissioner in compliance with an unlawful directive of the Federal Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. National Highway Authority, Islamabad vs Commissioner InlandPTCL 2022 CL. 145 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-02-17Read full judgment →
• M/s. National Development Finance Corporation vs Commissioner of2022 PCTLR 713 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Micro Innovations and Technologies (Pvt) Ltd. vs Federation of2022 SHC 542 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-12Read full judgment →
• M/s. Medisure Laboratories Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited2022 SHC 184 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Manaco International vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 SHC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Malik Mazhar Hussain Goraya vs Govt. of Punjab, etc2022 LHC 8584 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. M.K. Sons (Pvt) Limited, Khurrianwala vs The Cir, Rto, FaisalabadPTCL 2022 CL. 709 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-06-18Read full judgment →
• M/s. Kohinoor Spinning Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Inland RevenuePTCL 2022 CL. 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-23
  tax deductiongratuity fundincome from businessunapproved fundtax referencenew question of lawstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a tax reference concerning the deductibility of contributions made by the petitioner to an unapproved gratuity fund under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether such contributions are allowable as deductions when computing income under the head 'income from business' pursuant to section 21(e) of the Ordinance. The petitioner also attempted to raise a new argument regarding an exemption under clause 33 of Part-II of the Second Schedule of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that contributions to an unapproved gratuity fund are expressly prohibited from deduction under section 21(e). The Court emphasized that the statutory requirement for an 'approved' fund would be rendered meaningless if taxpayers could claim deductions for unapproved funds. Furthermore, the Court held that new questions of law not raised before the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court cannot be agitated for the first time in the Supreme Court. The principle established is that tax deductions for gratuity fund contributions are strictly contingent upon the fund's approved status under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Are contributions made to an unapproved gratuity fund deductible when computing income under the head 'income from business'?
  • Can a party raise a new question of law before the Supreme Court that was not previously raised before the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court?
  • Does the exemption under clause 33 of Part-II of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 apply to a person making a contribution to a gratuity fund?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Khokhar Textile Mills Limited, Multan vs The Cir (Enforcement), Lto,PTCL 2022 CL. 300 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• M/s. Karachi Iron & Steel Merchants Association through Authorised2022 PLJ Karachi 18 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• M/s. K.B. Enterprises Faisalabad vs The Cir, Rto, FaisalabadPTCL 2022 CL. 835 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-01-19Read full judgment →
• M/s. JS Bank Ltd., Karachi vs The Cir, Legal Zone, Lto, Karachi2022 ATIR 2 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
• M/s. Javedan Cement Limited vs S.L.A.T and Ors2022 SHC 38 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-10
  constitutional petitionlabor appellate tribunalreinstatementcompensation in lieu of reinstatementthird-party contractoremployer-employee relationshipverbal termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, which modified an order of the Sindh Labour Court by awarding financial compensation to the private respondents in lieu of reinstatement in service following their verbal termination by the petitioner-factory. The core legal questions involved whether the private respondents were employees of the petitioner-factory or a third-party contractor, and whether compensation could be awarded instead of reinstatement upon the closure or severance of the employment relationship. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that workers hired through third-party contractors can be considered workers of the principal establishment under established jurisprudence, and that the Labour Appellate Tribunal acted within lawful bounds in awarding compensation based on length of service and other equitable factors. The key principle laid down is that employers cannot evade statutory liabilities toward workers by claiming a third-party contractor relationship when the workers perform regular duties for the establishment, and appellate forums possess the discretion to award lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement where circumstances warrant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether workers employed through a third-party contractor can be considered regular employees of the principal establishment?
  • Can the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal award financial compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service?
  • Does the High Court have limited jurisdiction under Article 199 to review concurrent findings of fact recorded by labor forums?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Iqra Anwar-Ul-Quran Lil Itefal Trust through its Director, Quetta vs2022 PLJ Quetta 40 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. H.A.R. Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Faisalabad vs The CommissionerPTCL 2022 CL. 309 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-02-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Gerry's Dnata (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Learned Member and 02 others2022 PCTLR 1363 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-03
  constitutional petitionNIRCsummoning of officersindustrial disputebailable warrantsjurisdiction of NIRCdismissal of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner company invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the summoning orders and bailable warrants issued against its Vice President by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) pursuant to a complaint filed by a former employee whose earlier complaint had already been dismissed. The core legal question was whether the NIRC acted without jurisdiction in summoning the company's officer and proceeding with a time-barred and allegedly untenable complaint. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the NIRC is fully competent under the Industrial Relations Act to adjudicate disputes, issue summons, and punish for non-compliance or abuse of its process, and that premature interference by the High Court in sub-judice proceedings before the NIRC is unwarranted. The key principle laid down is that constitutional intervention will not be made to obstruct ongoing proceedings of a specialized tribunal acting within its statutory competence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 199 with interlocutory summoning orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission in a pending matter?
  • Is the National Industrial Relations Commission competent under the Industrial Relations Act to summon company officers and issue warrants for non-appearance?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against show-cause or summoning orders before the final adjudication of the matter by the competent forum?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Firdous Cloth Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Faisalabad vs The Cir (Enforcement),PTCL 2022 CL. 585 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
• M/s. Fateh Textile Mills Limited vs M/s. Nabila Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited &2022 SHC 102 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Esskay & sons vs The Collector of Customs & others2022 SHC 7 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Don Cable TV Network and 4 others vs Regional General Manager2022 PLJ Lahore 800 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Bank Alfalah Ltd., Karachi vs The Cir, Legal Zone, Lto, Karachi2022 ATIR 3 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-02-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. an Textile Mills Ltd. Faisalabad vs The Cir, (Lto), Multan, etcPTCL 2022 CL. 133 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-08-24Read full judgment →
• M/s. Alamdar Tahawar & Nasir (Private) Limited through Manager vs2022 PLJ Islamabad 180 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Al-Meezan Cotton Processing, Sammurdri Road, Faisalabad vs ThePTCL 2022 CL. 908, 2024 PTD (Trib.) 124 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
• M/s. Akbar & Zakria Pipes (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan throughPTCL 2022 CL. 174 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Agmore International (Pvt.) Limited, etc vs Bank of Punjab. etc2022 LHC 4017, 2022 CLD 1412 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
• M/s Zhongxing Telecom Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland2022 ATIR 10 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• M/s Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-2022 ATIR 1 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-01-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Zafar Hafeez vs United Bank Limited2022 LHC 3416 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
• M/s Yar Steel Mills, Bringan Chakdara, Lower Dir, Timergara, District2022 PHC 498, 2024 PLD Peshawar 184, 2024 PTD 1258 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• M/s Worldcall Telecom Ltd vs Govt. of the Punjab & others2022 LHC 2871 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-15Read full judgment →
• M/s Warid Telecom (Pvt) Ltd, Islamabad vs Commissioner Inland Revenue,2022 ATIR 7 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
• M/s Warid Telecom (Pvt) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Lto,2022 ATIR 11 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-08-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Three Star Hosiery Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs Mubarak Ali and others2022 LHC 1368, 2024 PLC 217 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-23
  payment of wagesdeposit of decretal amountcondition precedentlabour court appeal18th amendmentArticle 270AAdevolution of powersconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of seven connected constitutional petitions filed by an employer company challenging orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as well as orders of the Punjab Labour Court dismissing the petitioner's appeals for failure to deposit the decretal amount. The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and argued that the Act lapsed after 30.06.2011 following the 18th Constitutional Amendment. The High Court held that deposit of the decretal amount is a mandatory condition precedent for maintaining an appeal under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act, which is a beneficial labor statute, and the proviso is not unconstitutional. The Court further ruled that under Article 270AA(6) of the Constitution, existing laws on devolved subjects continue in force until expressly altered or repealed, and 30.06.2011 was not a cutoff date for statutory invalidity. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement under Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 to deposit the decretal amount a mandatory condition precedent for filing an appeal?
  • Does the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 violate Articles 2A or 227 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a law on a devolved subject automatically lapse after the devolution cutoff date specified under Article 270AA(8) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Telenor Micro Finance Bank Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue2022 SHC 212, 2022 PTD 1619 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• M/s Taisei Corporation, Islamabad vs Commissioner Inland Revenue,2022 ATIR 9 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
• M/s Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) vs M/s Noor CNG Filling2022 SCP 126, 2022 PLJ SC 288, 2022 PSC 1200, 2022 SCMR 1501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-05
  Board ResolutionPower of AttorneyOrder XXIX Rule 1 CPCjuristic personauthorization to file appealimplied barOGRA Ordinance 2002meter tamperinggas pilferage
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit filed by the respondent against SNGPL for declaration and injunction regarding gas billing issues, meter removal, and alleged gas pilferage. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent, finding that SNGPL failed to abide by prescribed inspection and laboratory procedures. The Appellate Court and High Court subsequently dismissed SNGPL's appeal and revision due to a lack of proper authorization, Board Resolution, or Power of Attorney empowering the filing officers or counsel. SNGPL contended before the Supreme Court that the suit was impliedly barred under the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) Ordinance, 2002. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decisions, holding that compliance with Order XXIX, Rule 1 and Order III, Rule 4 of C.P.C. is mandatory for juristic persons, and appeals or pleadings filed without valid authorization, power of attorney, or Board Resolution are invalid. It further held that the plea of an implied bar could not be entertained when raised for the first time without prior pleading or application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed on behalf of a public limited company maintainable without a valid Board Resolution or Power of Attorney authorizing the institution of the appeal or engagement of counsel?
  • Can a power of attorney executed after the date of filing an appeal retroactively validate the appeal proceedings if it was not produced before the appellate court?
  • Can a party raise the plea of an implied statutory bar to the jurisdiction of civil courts for the first time before the Supreme Court when no such plea was taken in the courts below?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Samba Bank Ltd vs M/s Hotel Hill View Limited2022 IHC 3 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Pride Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. etc vs JS Bank Ltd2022 LHC 4439 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ramzan vs The State and others2022 SCMR 2111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-30
  post-arrest bailmurdercross-versionrule of consistencyspecific rolecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 337-F(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, relating to a murderous assault resulting in a murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail based on a cross-version, a rule of consistency with co-accused, and claims of mala fides. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with a fatal fire shot attribution to the deceased's head, supported by medical evidence and eyewitness testimonies, and that the cross-version did not exculpate him nor did the rule of consistency apply given his distinct, active role. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's order declining bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere existence of a cross-version is alone sufficient ground to grant post-arrest bail to an accused?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when an accused is assigned a distinct and fatal role compared to co-accused who were granted bail?
  • Whether an accused nominated in a promptly lodged FIR with a specific role of firing a fatal shot at the deceased is entitled to bail?
  • When does a tentative assessment of the record justify the refusal of post-arrest bail in a capital charge case?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Presson Descon International (Pvt.), Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 4144 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Premium Developers vs Muhammad Tariq2022 LHC 1890 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Paracha Molding Works vs Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority and2022 IHC 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan WAPDA Foundation vs The Collector of Customs, Sales Tax,2022 LHC 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  excise dutysales taxmanufacturereclamation of transformer oiltaxable supplybailmentconstitutional competenceFederal Legislative List
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed an appeal by M/s Pakistan WAPDA Foundation against a High Court judgment upholding tax and duty demands on the reclamation of waste transformer oil for WAPDA. The central issues were whether reclaiming transformer oil constituted 'manufacture' under the Central Excises Act 1944 and the Sales Tax Act 1990, and whether the appellant was liable to pay excise duty and sales tax on the activity. The Court held that prior to the 18th Constitutional Amendment, Parliament had full constitutional competence under Article 142 read with Entries 44 and 49 of the Federal Legislative List to legislate on excise duties and sales tax. On statutory interpretation, the Court determined that while oil reclamation falls under the broader definition of 'manufacture' in Section 2(25) of the Central Excises Act 1944 as repair/reconditioning, the appellant was a mere service provider under a bailment contract, not the 'manufacturer' liable for excise duty. Furthermore, under Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act 1990, oil reclamation does not transform goods into a new distinct article, so the appellant was not a 'manufacturer' making a 'taxable supply' under Section 3. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does the process of reclaiming used transformer oil constitute 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(25) of the Central Excises Act 1944?
  • Is a service provider who reconditions goods owned by a third party under a contract of bailment liable to pay central excise duty as a 'manufacturer'?
  • Does the reclamation or repair of used transformer oil amount to 'manufacture' under Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Can a entity providing repair services on goods owned by another person be charged to sales tax as a 'manufacturer' making a 'taxable supply' under Section 3 of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. vs Collector of Customs,2022 SCP 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  customs dutyrefund claimconcessionary rateunjust enrichmentstatutory presumptiontelecommunication equipmentfiscal statute interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the High Court of Sindh's order dismissing a reference application regarding a refund claim of overpaid customs duty. M/s Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited imported equipment for its wireless loop system, claiming a concessionary rate under SRO No. 457(I)/2004, which was initially denied by customs authorities who charged standard duty and invoked the doctrine of unjust enrichment and section 19A of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant fulfilled the conditions precedent under SRO No. 457(I)/2004 and whether the statutory presumption under section 19A regarding the passing of the incidence of duty applies to equipment used internally in providing services rather than being sold. The Supreme Court held that the appellant fulfilled all conditions precedent, including obtaining the necessary BOI certificate and PTA NOC. Furthermore, section 19A and the common law doctrine of unjust enrichment do not apply where imported capital goods are installed and utilized internally for rendering services rather than sold as goods to third parties. The appeal was allowed and refund claims were granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an importer who fails to produce exemption certificates at the initial stage of filing Goods Declarations is precluded from claiming a concessionary rate of customs duty under SRO No. 457(I)/2004 if such certificates are produced during adjudicatory proceedings?
  • Whether the presumption under section 19A of the Customs Act, 1969, that the incidence of paid customs duty has been passed on to the buyer applies to imported capital goods installed and utilized in an enterprise's own service projects rather than sold to third parties?
  • Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment and common law principles regarding indirect taxes apply to the internal use of imported machinery in service sectors?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan General Insurance Limited vs Securities & Exchange2022 LHC 3883 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Paider Builder Private Limited r/o Flat No. 16 Second Floor 136 Mini2022 SC AJ&K 21, 2022 PSC 1531 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Ohad Motors (Pvt) Ltd vs Govt. of Punjab and others2022 LHC 2860, 2022 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
• M/s Noman ul Haq Kakakhel vs The State2022 PHC 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• M/s National Highway Authority vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Cto,2022 ATIR 5 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-02-17Read full judgment →
• M/s Naseem & Company and others vs Capital Development Authority2022 [M] CLR 1177 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Najaat Welfare Foundation, P-756-a, Kot Khan Muhammad, Station2022 F.S.C 39 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Multix International Corporation vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation2022 SHC 464 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-19Read full judgment →
• M/s Muhammad Shoaib C/o Shoaib Traders, Chak Da Roza Bhera vs2022 ATIR 8 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-03-15Read full judgment →
• M/s Masco Spinning Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 2784, 2022 PTD 1570 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Makkah Traders etc. vs MCB Bank Limited2022 LHC 7493 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
• M/s Lucky Cement Ltd thr. its General Manager, Peshawar vs Khyber2022 SCP 258, 2022 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-09
  Property taxDiscriminationEquality before lawRight to tradeConstitutional lawStatutory powerUltra vires taxTax refundKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment, arguing discriminatory imposition of property tax on a cement manufacturer in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The appellant contended it was initially singled out for property tax and subsequently placed in a higher tax category ('B') compared to competitors ('C' or 'D'), violating Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court considered whether an intelligible differentia justified the disparate tax rates and if the provincial Government failed to exercise its powers under Section 42(5) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013, to prevent discrimination. The Court held that the discriminatory imposition of property tax without justifiable criteria was illegal and ultra vires. It further ruled that the Government's failure to exercise its statutory power to rationalize matters, despite awareness of discrimination, was arbitrary and capricious. The Court directed that the appellant be treated equally to other cement manufacturers and that the excess property tax paid be refunded or adjusted within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Can a taxing authority impose different tax rates on similarly situated entities without an intelligible differentia?
  • Is the Government obligated to exercise its statutory power to prevent discrimination when aware of it?
  • Is money paid as tax pursuant to an ultra vires demand by a public authority recoverable by a citizen?
  • What constitutes reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Lucky Cement Limited vs Govt of Sindh and others2022 SHC 462, 2024 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• M/s Kot Addu Power Company Limited vs The Commissioner Inland2022 LHC 3627, 2025 PTD 77 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• M/s Khyber Tobacco Company Limited vs The Federal Board of Revenue2022 IHC 160, 2025 PTD 297 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Kamran Filling Station etc vs M/s Habib Bank Ltd etc2022 PHC 588 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• M/s It Comm Private Limited vs Collector, Collectorate of Customs2022 LHC 8476 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-26Read full judgment →
• M/s Instaclear (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Head, Karachi & another vs Malik2022 LHC 8248, 2024 PLC 292 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-13
  regularization of servicespermanent workmancontract employmentindustrial relationsconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsretrospective operation of statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging concurrent orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) allowing grievance petitions filed by respondents for the regularization of their services with Pak Arab Refinery Limited (PARCO). The core legal questions relate to whether workers employed through contractors or on a temporary basis for permanent nature jobs are entitled to regularization, the maintainability of grievance petitions under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 for security, fire service staff, and supervisors, and the applicability of the principle of equal treatment. The Lahore High Court held that outsourcing permanent jobs through contractors constitutes a sham device, and workers engaged in jobs of a permanent nature are entitled to regularization. The Court further ruled that the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 has retrospective/retroactive application to pending proceedings, bringing security, fire service staff, and supervisors within the definition of workmen. The constitutional petitions were dismissed, establishing that long-term temporary or contract employment on permanent posts creates a right to regularization and that similarly placed employees must be treated equally pursuant to constitutional mandates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees hired through a contractor for permanent nature posts are entitled to regularization?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 apply retrospectively to pending proceedings commenced under the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Are security guards, fire fighters, and supervisors included within the definition of workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether long-term temporary or daily-wage employment on permanent posts creates a presumption of regular service need?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Heal the World vs Federation of Pakistan Protection court & Ors2022 SHC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
• M/s Haji Mehdi Hassan & Sons & others vs Allied Bank Limited2022 LHC 8030, 2024 CLD 137 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Federal Bank for Co-Operatives vs Commissioner of Income Tax,2022 [M] CLR 18 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Fauji Fertilizer Company vs Syed Jawad Ali Shah2022 SHC 506 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Faiz Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Collector of Customs & others2022 SHC 118, 2022 PTD 1183 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-15
  provisional assessmentcustoms valuationgoods declarationtime limitationfinal determinationcustoms dutyCustoms Appellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from customs appeals regarding the provisional assessment and subsequent final determination of imported consignments of Sabutol. The core legal question was whether a provisional determination of goods for customs duty and taxes under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 attains finality if the department fails to make a final determination within the maximum stipulated period of nine months. The Sindh High Court held that failure to finalize the provisional determination within the specified statutory timeframe results in the provisional assessment automatically attaining finality based on the declared values, rendering any delayed final assessment time-barred and without legal effect. The Court laid down the principle that the department's authority to conduct inquiries and finalize assessments is strictly bound by the mandatory limitation period prescribed under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, and exceeding this period operates to crystallize the provisional assessment as the final assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a provisional determination of goods for customs duty under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 attain finality if final determination is not made within the stipulated period of nine months?
  • What is the legal effect of a final assessment order passed by the customs department beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the failure of the customs department to finalize a provisional assessment within time result in the acceptance of the importer's declared value?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s D-Watson Chemist vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Rawalpindi2022 ATIR 6 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-02-22Read full judgment →
• M/s Crescent Jute Products Ltd vs Bank Alflah Ltd. & another2022 LHC 2738 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
• M/s Cherat Cement Co. Ltd, Nowshera through its Senior Manager2022 PHC 568 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Cemtech-Jiangsu JV, Islamabad through its Authorized2022 PHC 444 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Best Way Cement Ltd. Best Way Building, 19-a College Road, F 72022 LHC 7165 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Askari General Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/s Tracking World Pvt. Ltd.2022 SHC 418 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Asian Food Industries Limited and others vs Federal Board of Revenue2022 LHC 2486, 2022 PTD 1069 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• M/s Alla-ud-Din Khan and sons JV With Peer Muhammad & Company,2022 PHC 122 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Al-Ghani Chain Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 LHC 7659 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Barkat Seed Corporation and 3 others vs Silk Bank Limited etc.2022 LHC 6281 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Barkat Seed Corporation and 3 others vs Silk Bank Limited etc2022 LHC 6281 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Agp Limited & another vs M/s Galaxy Pharma (Private) Limited &2022 SHC 378 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-15Read full judgment →
• M/s A.K Tariq Foundry vs Government of Pakistan & others2022 PHC 670, 2023 PLJ Peshawar 64, 2024 PTD 1335 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-02Read full judgment →
• M/s A.J. Traders through its proprietor Muhammad Ilyas vs The Collector of2022 SCP 296, 2023 PLJ SC 49, 2022 PTD 1869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-12
  customs appealtime frame for decisionmandatory versus directory provisionstaxpayer rightscustoms duty exemptionstatutory interpretationdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants imported gold and silver under SRO No. 266(I)/2001 on the condition that jewellery manufactured from it would be exported within 180 days, but failed to export. The Collector of Customs passed adverse orders, which were upheld by the Customs Appellate Tribunal and the Peshawar High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals on merits, holding that benefits availed under the SRO must be complied with. Additionally, the Court examined whether the Tribunal's failure to decide the appeal within the sixty-day timeframe prescribed under section 194-B of the Customs Act, 1969 rendered the appellate decision void and a nullity. The Supreme Court held that the time limit for deciding an appeal is directory rather than mandatory in respect of the taxpayer, and an appellate order passed beyond the stipulated period is not void, as the tardiness of a State functionary cannot be allowed to prejudice a taxpayer's right of appeal or violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 8, 10A, and the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statutory time limit for deciding an appeal under section 194-B of the Customs Act, 1969 is mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure of the Customs Appellate Tribunal to decide an appeal within the prescribed timeframe render its decision void or a nullity in law?
  • Can a taxpayer's appeal be negated or dismissed solely on the ground of delay by the appellate tribunal in deciding the matter?
  • Whether the tardiness or non-compliance of a State functionary in adhering to a statutory timeline can be visited upon or prejudice an appellant taxpayer?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzafar-ul-Mulk Khan and Others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 MLD 1879 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Masood vs Defence Housing Authority, Lahore, etc.2022 LHC 7599 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Ali Shah & Another vs The State etc2022 PHC 590 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Islamabad through Authorized Attorney2022 PLC 115 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-06
  writ petitionworkmanindustrial relationsdismissal from serviceNIRCconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the concurrent orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) upholding the reinstatement of the respondent employee, who was dismissed from service by the petitioner bank following disciplinary proceedings. The core legal questions involve whether the respondent qualified as a workman under the applicable statute, whether the grievance petition was maintainable, and whether the lower forums committed any jurisdictional or legal error warranting interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondent fell within the definition of a workman, that the concurrent findings of fact by the NIRC forums were supported by evidence, and that no jurisdictional defect or patent legal error existed. The Court also emphasized that the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem had been violated during the departmental proceedings. The key principle laid down is that the High Court, in exercising its supervisory writ jurisdiction, will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by inferior tribunals unless there is a patent legal defect, jurisdictional error, or misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee serving as an officiating branch manager falls within the definition of a workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the National Industrial Relations Commission in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the failure to issue a proper charge sheet and show-cause notice prior to dismissal violate the principle of audi alteram partem?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited through Manager vs Mst. Nusrat2022 MLD 973 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-10Read full judgment →