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.
- DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS Versus TRADECOM PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through Executive Deputy Director2008 PTD 1729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Embassy of Azerbaijan imported a Mercedes Benz S-500 car under an exemption from customs duties and taxes granted by the Central Board of Revenue, showing a notional value of 27,000 US $ in the bill of entry. Subsequently, the car was sold within three years of its import, making it liable to 100% of duties and taxes at the prevailing rate pursuant to Notification No. S.R.O. 447(I)/04 dated 12th June, 2004, as amended by Notification No. S.R.O. 1(I) dated 1st January, 2005. The Customs Authorities determined the value of the car at 74,144 Euro, which the respondent challenged successfully before the Lahore High Court on the ground that the department had already accepted the bill of entry showing the initial notional value. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the Customs Department to consider whether the customs authorities could determine the real value of the car for the first time when duties became payable upon its sale, given that no prior valuation occurred due to the initial exemption.
Questions settled- Whether the Customs Department can determine the real value of an imported vehicle for the first time when duties and taxes become payable upon its sale within the restricted period, where no valuation was previously conducted due to an initial exemption?
- Does the acceptance of a bill of entry showing a notional value for an exempted vehicle bar the Customs Authorities from subsequently determining its actual value when the exemption ceases to apply?
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI Versus ABDUL GHANI2007 PTD 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-23Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT), KARACHI Versus CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE .TRIBUNAL, KARACHI2007 PTD 2466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-17Read full judgment →
- ICI PAKISTAN LIMITED Versus FEDEKATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance2007 PTD 2306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-24Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS through Additional Collector, Hub Versus CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI BENCH2007 PTD 2275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-02-24Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX and another Versus DEWAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and others2007 PTD 1605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that had granted relief to respondents regarding the levy of Sales Tax on imported goods. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of a Sales Tax exemption notification, occurring after the conclusion of a contract for import but before the goods landed, could be applied to the respondents, specifically whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel prevented such withdrawal. The Supreme Court held that the legislative intent, clarified by the insertion of Section 6(1A) into the Sales Tax Act, 1990, explicitly incorporated Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, with retrospective effect. This provision mandates that the rate of duty applicable to goods includes any amount payable due to the withdrawal of an exemption, regardless of when a contract was concluded. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming that liability for Sales Tax is determined at the time of the submission of the Bill of Entry, and prior judicial decisions relying on promissory estoppel were superseded by this retrospective legislative amendment.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of a Sales Tax exemption notification apply to goods where the import contract was concluded prior to the withdrawal?
- Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked to claim a Sales Tax exemption after the insertion of Section 6(1A) into the Sales Tax Act 1990?
- Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 apply to the levy of Sales Tax on imported goods?
- Is the liability for Sales Tax on imported goods determined by the date of the submission of the Bill of Entry?
- Haji REHMATULLAH and another Versus COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, QUETTA and others2007 PTD 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-09-14Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX Versus MAHBOOB INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.2006 PTD 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals, by leave of the Court, arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning whether the production of polyethylene poly bags/pouches by vegetable ghee manufacturers for packaging their own product constitutes an independent manufacturing process liable to central excise duty and sales tax. The respondents argued that the pouch manufacturing was simultaneous with ghee manufacturing and exempt. The core legal question was whether the conversion of polyethylene film into poly bags for packaging vegetable ghee is a distinct manufacturing activity subject to central excise duty and sales tax, notwithstanding that the final product (ghee) is exempt or that the bags are for home consumption. The Supreme Court held that the preparation of poly bags is an independent manufacturing process yielding vendible goods capable of being sold in the market, thus attracting central excise duty and sales tax. The key principle laid down is that intermediary products and packaging materials produced during or for a manufacturing process constitute taxable goods and a taxable activity under the Central Excises Act, 1944 and the Sales Tax Act, 1990, even if manufactured for self-consumption or if the final product is exempt from tax.
Questions settled- Whether the conversion of polyethylene film into poly bags for packaging vegetable ghee constitutes an independent manufacturing process liable to central excise duty and sales tax?
- Does the fact that a packaging material or intermediary product is manufactured for self or home consumption exempt it from central excise duty and sales tax?
- Does the exemption of a final product, such as vegetable oil or ghee, from central excise and sales tax exclude the production of polyethylene poly bags used for its packaging from the ambit of taxable goods?
- MODEL TOWN SOCIETY LTD. Versus INCOME TAX AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL2006 PTD 2456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-11-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs FLYING BOARD AND PAPER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, LAHORE2006 PTD 2354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from 21 appeals directed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing custom appeals concerning the assessment of imported bleached soft wood sulphate pulp. The core legal questions involve whether the appellant was entitled to assessment at lower rates due to a purported decline in international market prices, how prior bills of entry and provisional release orders affect current assessments, and the application of section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of price reduction and that the customs authorities were justified in assessing the goods based on declared values and inspection reports. The court laid down the principle that where an importer claims a reduction in customs valuation due to international market fluctuations, the heavy onus lies entirely upon the importer to lead positive evidence proving such decline, failing which the declared or inspected transaction value stands.
Questions settled- Whether an importer claiming a lower customs valuation due to a downturn in international market prices is required to bring positive evidence on record to substantiate the price decline?
- Does section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 apply to goods released provisionally pursuant to an interim constitutional order of the High Court?
- Are customs authorities justified in accepting declared or pre-shipment inspection values when the importer fails to prove market price reduction?
- DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE Versus Messrs ICI, PAKISTAN LIMITED, LAHORE2006 PTD 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-02-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs NIDA-I-MILLAT (PVT.) LTD. LAHORE Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE NO.1, LAHORE2006 PTD 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-02-06Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others Versus WAPDA and others2005 PTD 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-08-03Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR. CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, COLLECTORATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS; KARACHI Versus DEWAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and others2005 PTD 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-02-10Read full judgment →
- ADEEL-UR-REHMAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others2005 PTD 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions filed against the detention of imported betel nut consignments by Customs authorities, who alleged the goods were infested and unfit for human consumption. The core legal questions were whether Customs authorities possess the jurisdiction to detain goods based on public health concerns and whether the High Court correctly declined to exercise writ jurisdiction over disputed questions of fact regarding the quality of the imported goods. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitions were not maintainable because the conflicting laboratory reports regarding the fitness of the betel nuts for human consumption constituted disputed questions of fact that could only be resolved by a trial court after recording evidence. The Court affirmed that Customs authorities are empowered to restrict imports on grounds of public health and hygiene under the Customs Rules, 2001. Furthermore, it established that the constitutional right to life encompasses protection against impure food items, and that the presumption of regularity of official documents is rebuttable when their genuineness is challenged.
Questions settled- Can Customs authorities detain imported goods on the grounds of public health and hygiene?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the resolution of the dispute requires the determination of conflicting facts?
- Does the constitutional right to life include protection against the consumption of impure food items?
- Can a court rely on the high probability principle to decide disputed facts in a constitutional petition?
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE Versus FARHAN MAHMOOD and others2005 PTD 1493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the legality of importing used motorcycles into Pakistan under the guise of personal baggage. The respondents imported motorcycles, which were subsequently confiscated by Customs authorities for violating import regulations. The Lahore High Court had allowed the import, prompting the Collector of Customs to appeal. The Supreme Court examined the Passengers Baggage (Import) Rules, 1998, and the Import Trade and Procedure Order, 2000, noting that motorcycles do not fall within the definition of 'baggage' or the authorized categories for import under the Personal Baggage and Gift Schemes (Import of Vehicle) Rules, 2000, unless specific transfer of residence conditions are met, which were absent here. The Court held that the respondents failed to prove the motorcycles were for personal use under the relevant Central Board of Revenue instructions. However, regarding the issue of whether the Adjudicating Authority should have allowed redemption of the goods upon payment of fine and duty under Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969, the Court remanded the cases for fresh adjudication to determine if the motorcycles constituted 'smuggled goods' and whether the option of redemption was mandatory.
Questions settled- Do motorcycles fall within the definition of 'baggage' under the Passengers Baggage (Import) Rules, 1998?
- Does the Adjudicating Authority have a mandatory obligation to offer the option of redemption under Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969, for goods seized as smuggled?
- Can motorcycles be imported under the Personal Baggage and Gift Schemes (Import of Vehicle) Rules, 2000 without a transfer of residence?
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE and others Versus UNIVERSAL GATEWAY TRADING CORPORATION and another2005 PTD 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court granting interim relief and ordering the release of seized foreign origin goods to the respondents. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court could competently resolve disputed questions of fact and interference through its constitutional jurisdiction when adequate, efficacious statutory remedies were available under the customs laws, and whether the search and seizure conducted by the customs authorities without a formal magistrate's warrant complied with statutory requirements. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Court held that complex, controversial questions of fact regarding the legality of import, godown search, and seizure cannot be determined in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, especially when the statute provides a complete, self-contained hierarchy of remedies including appeals and revisions, and where criminal proceedings are already pending before a Special Judge Customs. The key principle laid down is that High Courts must refrain from exercising constitutional writ jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed factual matters or bypass alternative statutory remedies, and that customs officers may lawfully conduct searches without warrants under section 163 of the Customs Act when urgent and emergent circumstances regarding the risk of goods removal are properly recorded in writing.
Questions settled- Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in constitutional jurisdiction when a self-contained statutory hierarchy of remedies is available?
- Whether a customs officer can conduct a search without a warrant under section 163 of the Customs Act 1969 without recording grounds of belief regarding the danger of removal of goods?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against search and seizure by customs authorities when criminal proceedings and departmental adjudicatory mechanisms are already pending?
- ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR-II SALES TAX, LAHORE Versus ABDULLAH SUGAR MILLS LTD2003 PTD 1164 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- I.C.C. TEXTILE LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2001 PTD 1557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-03-16Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE, ISLAMABAD Versus PIONEER STEEL MILLS (PVT.) LTD,1999 PTD 1168 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Versus HUNZA CENTRAL ASIAN TEXTILE AND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD.1999 PTD 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-11Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus RAVI SPINNING LTD.1999 PTD 1078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The present appeals, arising from various judgments of the High Courts of Lahore, Sindh, Balochistan, and Peshawar, broadly concern the legality of the imposition of regulatory duty under section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 on imported goods that were either wholly or partially exempted from customs duty under section 19 of the Act, as well as issues regarding the withdrawal of exemptions from customs duty and sales tax. The core legal questions involve whether general exemption notifications covering statutory customs duty under the First Schedule extend to subsequent regulatory duties, the prospective or retrospective operation of the withdrawal of sales tax exemptions in the absence of a provision akin to section 31-A of the Customs Act, and the validity of delegated powers under section 18(2). The Supreme Court held that unless an exemption notification expressly covers future additional duties or uses broad phraseology covering 'whole of the customs duties' (as in the case of Gadoon Amazai), an exemption from statutory customs duty under the First Schedule does not exempt goods from regulatory duty. Furthermore, the court held that withdrawal of sales tax exemption operates prospectively and cannot override vested rights established prior to the notification, whereas customs duty withdrawals are governed by section 31-A. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, partially allowing government appeals and dismissing importer appeals save for specific exceptions.
Questions settled- Whether an exemption from customs duty granted under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 extends to a regulatory duty subsequently levied under section 18(2) of the said Act?
- Does the withdrawal of sales tax exemption operate retrospectively to affect transactions where contracts and letters of credit were finalized prior to the withdrawal notification?
- Is the Federal Government required to state reasons or justifications within a notification issued under section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 for the imposition of regulatory duty?
- Does section 6 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 bar the Federal Government from exercising its statutory power to levy regulatory duty under section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969?
- E.F.U. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1997 PTD 1693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals by various general insurance companies challenging the reopening of their tax assessments by the Income Tax Department. The core legal question was whether the Department could lawfully reopen these assessments to tax dividend income at a higher normal business rate, rather than the lower rate previously applied, based on the precedent set in Adamjee Insurance Company v. Central Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court held that the Department's reliance on Adamjee and Central Insurance Company was misplaced, as those cases did not authorize the denial of lower tax rates on dividend income. The Court ruled that the principle established in Commissioner of Income Tax v. American Life Insurance Company—that dividend income remains subject to lower tax rates under the relevant Schedule—remained valid and applicable. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the impugned notices. The key principle laid down is that "definite information" under Section 65(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 requires more than a mere change in departmental interpretation or the misapplication of a precedent that does not address the specific issue at hand.
Questions settled- Can an Income Tax Officer reopen an assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 based on a misinterpretation of a prior court judgment?
- Are general insurance companies entitled to the lower tax rates on dividend income as provided in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
- Does the computation of profits and gains of an insurance company under the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 preclude the application of lower tax rates on dividend income?
- Is a judgment of a superior court that does not address the specific issue in question considered 'definite information' for the purpose of reopening tax assessments?
- GLAXO LABORATORIES OF PAKISTAN LTD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1995 PTD 391 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MESSRS JULIAN HOSHANG DINSHAW TRUST Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE XVIII SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI1992 PTD 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the taxability of dividends distributed by a company to its shareholders out of compensation received for the compulsory acquisition of its land. The core legal question was whether such receipts, which were capital in nature in the hands of the company, retained their character as non-taxable capital receipts when distributed as dividends to shareholders, or whether they became taxable income. The Supreme Court held that the writ petitions were maintainable despite the existence of alternative statutory remedies, as the tax authorities were bound by a circular that rendered administrative appeals futile. On the merits, the Court held that the compensation retained its character as a capital receipt upon distribution and did not constitute taxable income. The Court clarified that Section 151 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, regarding the limitation of exemptions, was inapplicable because the receipt was never income under the taxing statutes. The key principle established is that the character of a receipt as capital or income does not change upon distribution to shareholders, and receipts outside the purview of the taxing statute cannot be taxed as dividends.
Questions settled- Does a receipt that is capital in nature in the hands of a company retain its character as a non-taxable capital receipt when distributed as dividends to shareholders?
- Can a taxpayer invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court when administrative remedies are rendered futile by binding departmental circulars?
- Does Section 151 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 apply to receipts that are outside the purview of the taxing statute?
- Is compensation received for the compulsory acquisition of immovable property considered taxable income in the hands of shareholders?
- MESSRS CHAUDHRI WIRE ROPE INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE. Versus SALES TAX OFFICER SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, LAHORE1988 PTD 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a constitutional petition challenging notices issued by a Sales Tax Officer to reopen tax assessments for a manufacturing company. The core legal question was whether the Sales Tax Officer possessed the jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 28 of the Sales Tax Act 1951 regarding items previously granted tax exemptions, and whether a constitutional petition challenging such notices was premature. The Supreme Court held that the petition was premature. The Court affirmed that Section 28 of the Sales Tax Act 1951 explicitly empowers the Sales Tax Officer to reopen cases where tax has escaped assessment or was under-assessed, even if an exemption was previously granted. The Court established that a taxpayer must exhaust available administrative remedies by raising all objections, including claims of a mere 'change of opinion' by the assessing officer, before the relevant tax authority prior to invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court declined to interfere with the pending administrative process, directing the appellant to present its defenses before the Sales Tax Officer.
Questions settled- Does the Sales Tax Officer have the jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 28 of the Sales Tax Act 1951 if an exemption was previously granted?
- Is a constitutional petition challenging a show-cause notice issued by a tax authority premature?
- Can a taxpayer invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court before exhausting administrative remedies before the Sales Tax Officer?
- RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS CO. LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1988 PTD 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals through leave of the Court are directed against three separate judgments of the Sind High Court holding that the appellant-company was not entitled to a 10% rebate on super-tax under the Finance Acts of 1965, 1967, and 1968. The core legal question is whether processing maize to extract corn oil, starch, and cattle-feed qualifies for the 10% super-tax rebate under the relevant provisions concerning the processing of 'grain'. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the rebate because the income, profits, and gains derived from converting grain into entirely different commercial commodities (such as oil and starch) lack the requisite nexus with the grain, as the original commodity must retain its identity and not be consumed to produce a new item. The key principle laid down is that statutory terms like 'processing' must be interpreted strictly within the context of the provision and in conjunction with accompanying words such as freezing, preserving, and canning, ensuring that the processed raw material retains its essential identity rather than being transformed into a wholly new marketable substance.
Questions settled- Is a company entitled to a 10% super-tax rebate on the processing of grain when the grain is converted into entirely new end-products such as oil, starch, and cattle-feed?
- How should the word 'processing' be interpreted when used alongside terms like freezing, preserving, and canning in a taxing statute?
- Can a court resettle and reframe a question of law referred under the Income-tax Act 1922 to extract the real issue between the parties?
- Does the principle of ejusdem generis strictly apply when determining the scope of the term 'processing' appearing before other modes of treatment?
- MESSRS BISVIL SPINNERS LTD. Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS CIRCLE, SHEIKHUPURA AND ANOTHER1988 PTD 535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax dispute concerns whether goods previously granted a total sales tax exemption under a general government notification could be subjected to a reduced tax rate via a subsequent notification without the express rescission of the earlier exemption. The appellant argued that because the initial exemption notification remained intact, the subsequent notification imposing a reduced rate could not legally apply to their products. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the later notification, which targeted specific categories of goods, functioned as a special provision creating an exception to the earlier general exemption. The Court affirmed that when an authority exercises identical statutory powers to issue a special provision following a general one, the special provision prevails and effectively modifies the scope of the general provision. Consequently, the Court ruled that the reduced tax rate was validly imposed, establishing the principle that specific subsequent notifications operate as exceptions to prior general exemptions, rendering formal rescission of the earlier notification unnecessary for the new rate to take effect.
Questions settled- Does a later notification imposing a reduced sales tax rate on specific goods implicitly override an earlier general exemption notification?
- Is express rescission of a general tax exemption notification required when a subsequent special notification imposes a reduced tax rate on the same goods?
- How should conflicting tax notifications issued under the same statutory power be interpreted?
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI Versus MESSRS LYALLPUR COLD STORAGE, LAHORE ROAD,'LYALLPUR AND OTHERS.1988 PTD 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals arise from judgments of the Lahore High Court involving the interpretation of section 26-A of the Income-tax Act 1922, as amended by the Finance Act V of 1965. The core legal question was whether a firm established through a prior oral agreement can be validly registered under section 26-A on the basis of a partnership deed executed subsequently during the relevant accounting year, prior to its end. The Supreme Court held that the amendment introduced by the Finance Act 1965, which added the requirement for the instrument to be executed in writing before the end of the previous year, permits registration even if there was a prior oral agreement, provided the written instrument is executed before the close of the previous year. The Court affirmed the interpretation given in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rippon Printing Press, dismissing the appeals and holding that the partnership deed operates with retrospective effect for the accounting period claimed.
Questions settled- Whether a firm based on a prior oral agreement can be granted registration under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act 1922 upon the subsequent execution of a written partnership deed?
- What is the legal effect of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act V of 1965 to section 26-A of the Income-tax Act 1922 regarding the time of execution of a partnership instrument?
- Can registration of a partnership firm be allowed for a part of the accounting year when the instrument is executed before the end of the previous year?
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION Versus THE COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL); KARACHI1988 PTD 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns an income tax dispute regarding whether unclaimed balances from unutilized airline tickets constitute taxable income. The core legal question was whether payments received for tickets are trading receipts at the time of receipt or refundable deposits, and whether transferring these amounts to a 'Profit and Loss Appropriation Account' after three years alters their character for tax purposes. The Supreme Court held that the nature and character of a receipt for income tax purposes are fixed once and for all at the time of receipt. Because the ticket price was initially a liability (refundable deposit), it does not transform into a trading receipt merely through accounting transfers or the passage of time. Furthermore, the Court determined that under the unamended Section 10(2-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, there was no evidence of remission or cessation of liability. The key principle laid down is that subsequent accounting entries cannot retrospectively convert a non-taxable liability into a trading receipt; the taxability must be determined based on the nature of the receipt at the time it was originally acquired.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of an unclaimed liability to a profit and loss account retrospectively convert it into a taxable trading receipt?
- Is the character of a receipt for income tax purposes fixed at the time of its initial receipt?
- Does the mere passage of time, without the actual cessation of liability, render an unclaimed deposit taxable under the unamended Section 10(2-A) of the Income-tax Act 1922?
- CHAUDHRY TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS1982 PTD 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND Versus SYED JAMAT ALI SHAH1982 PTD 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from civil miscellaneous petitions concerning the suspension of a Lahore High Court judgment in a tax dispute. The respondent had declared undisclosed income under the Income-tax Act, 1922, part of which consisted of shares in a company subsequently acquired by the Federal Government without compensation. The Income-tax Department assessed tax on the entire declared income, prompting the respondent to file a writ petition, which the High Court accepted in part by setting aside the assessment on the value of the uncompensated shares. The Central Board of Revenue sought special leave to appeal and obtained an ex-parte interim stay of the High Court's judgment. Upon the respondent's application for vacation of the stay, the Supreme Court evaluated the traditional principles governing interim injunctions: prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience. The Court held that the petitioners would not suffer irreparable loss if the tax was not realized pending appeal, whereas the respondent would suffer grievously if forced to pay. Consequently, the Court vacated the interim stay order.
Questions settled- What are the established principles for issuing interim injunctions or stay orders in pending appeals?
- Whether the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss if tax realization on taken-over shares is suspended pending appeal?
- MESSRS NOON SUGAR MILLS LTD., BHALWAL-PETITIONER Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI-RESPONDENT1982 PTD 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
- KHALID & COMPANY, LAHORE Versus THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1981 PTD 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-12Read full judgment →
- MIAN MUHAMMAD SHARIF & COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI1981 PTD 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
- SH. MUHAMMAD ZAKI Versus INCOME-TAX OFFCER1981 PTD 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE1981 PTD 66 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MASTER ABDUL AZIZ GHAFOOR KHAN Versus CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY AND ANOTHER1981 PTD 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing his constitutional petition, which challenged the initiation of proceedings by the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1950, to reopen an estate duty assessment finalized in 1964. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner, born after the death of the original property holder, qualified as an 'accountable person' with a derivative title, and whether the reopening of the assessment was barred by limitation or lacked jurisdictional requirements under the Estate Duty Act. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding the petitioner's status as an accountable person, the validity of reopening the assessment, and the limitation period required a fuller examination and a more authoritative pronouncement. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these statutory and jurisdictional issues.
Questions settled- Whether a person born after the death of the original property holder can be considered an accountable person with a derivative title under the Estate Duty Act, 1950?
- Can a finalized assessment of estate duty be reopened after the expiration of the limitation period prescribed under the Estate Duty Act, 1950?
- What are the jurisdictional requirements for initiating proceedings to reopen an estate duty assessment under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1950?
- NOON SUGAR MILIS LTD., BHALWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI1981 PTD 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE Versus ZAMIR & SONS, LAHORE1981 PTD 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
- MIAN AZIZ S. SHEIKH Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INVESTIGATION, LAHORE1981 PTD 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE1980 PTD 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-27Read full judgment →
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE Versus MESSRS LAHORE TEXTILE & GENERAL MILLS LTD.1980 PTD 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, ZONE `A', LAHORE Versus MESSRS STANDARD LEATHER WORKS1980 PTD 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions directed against an order of the Lahore High Court delivered in Tax References, which agreed with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment of sales tax for the assessment year 1964-65. The core legal question concerned whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's sales tax returns should be accepted in view of the Board's circulars issued under Martial Law Regulation No. 32. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly found the case to be covered by the relevant provisions of the circular, as the department failed to demonstrate any error in the view taken by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the decision that extended the benefit of the circular to the assessee.
Questions settled- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's Sales Tax returns should be accepted in view of the Board's Circulars?
- Whether the benefit of the circular issued under Martial Law Regulation No. 32 is restricted only to new assessees?
- KASHMIR POTTERY WORKS, SIALKOT Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE1980 PTD 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-18Read full judgment →
- MESSRS COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE ZONE1980 PTD 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
- MESSRS REHMATULLAH HABIBULLAH JAVED TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE Versus COMMISSIONER OF.INCOME-TAX, LAHORE.1980 PTD 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE Versus MESSRS SULEMAN & CO.1980 PTD 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-20Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus M.L. MAHAJAN2004 PTD 2166 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE APEX BANK2002 PTD 1124 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX2002 PTD 1123 · Supreme Court of India · 2001-10-11Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus D.L.F. UNITED2001 PTD 968 · Supreme Court of India · 1999-01-12Read full judgment →
- K. RAMULLAN Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX2001 PTD 3412 · Supreme Court of India · 2001-01-05Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus BHOORATNAM & CO.2001 PTD 3397 · Supreme Court of India · 2000-12-05Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus GUJARAT STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD.2001 PTD 1407 · Supreme Court of India · 2000-02-23Read full judgment →
- ENGLISH ELECTRIC CO. LTD. Versus COMTHISSIONER OF 4NCOME-TAX2001 PTD 1131 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- HASIMARA INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1998 PTD 2699 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
- KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1997 PTD 663 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- SOUTH INDIA STEEL ROLLING MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1997 PTD 1985 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
- LAL MUHAMMAD BIRI WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1997 PTD 1897 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
- 1997 PTD 14581997 PTD 1458 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ADDL.) Versus T. NAGGIREDDY1994 PTD 409 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
- UNION OF INDIA Versus A. SANYASI RAO1994 PTD 323 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
- T. STANES AND CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1992 PTD 428 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CALCUTTA Versus BIJU PATNAIK1988 PTD 950 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-05-09Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus BIRLA BROS. P. LTD.1988 PTD 945 · Supreme Court of India · 1970-04-23Read full judgment →
- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE V, CALCUTTA1988 PTD 934 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-05-08Read full judgment →
- ANCHOR PRESSINGS (P.) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX U. P.1988 PTD 930 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ORISSA Versus ORISSA CORPORATION (P.) LTD.1988 PTD 925 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS Versus SHIVAKAMI CO. P. LTD.1988 PTD 920 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI Versus BANSI DHAR & SONS1988 PTD 907 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- D. V. BAPAT INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE, BOMBAY Versus TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD.1988 PTD 905 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-01-08Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL-I Versus ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES (INDIA) P. LTD.1988 PTD 902 · Supreme Court of India · 1985-10-10Read full judgment →
- UNION OF INDIA Versus RAJESWARI & CO.1988 PTD 898 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-05Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI Versus MAHALAXMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD.1988 PTD 892 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-15Read full judgment →
- NIRANJAN & CO. P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL,1988 PTD 886 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,' WEST BENGAL-II Versus HINDUSTAN HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST LTD.1988 PTD 882 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. Versus MESSRS AURIAYA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ALLAHABAD1988 PTD 872 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-04-10Read full judgment →
- MESSRS: PATNAIK & CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ORISSA1988 PTD 869 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- HAJI ABDUL HAMEED Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW1988 PTD 867 · Supreme Court of India · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HARYANA AND OTHERS Versus TARSENI KAMAR AND ANOTHER1988 PTD 859 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-17Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1988 PTD 851 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-15Read full judgment →
- MAYA RANI PUNJ Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI1988 PTD 841 · Supreme Court of India · 1985-12-11Read full judgment →
- MADNANI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ORISSA1988 PTD 839 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY Versus K.A. PATH1988 PTD 838 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX; BOMBAY Versus H. HULCK LARSEN1988 PTD 819 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-05-08Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1988 PTD 694 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF 1NCONIE-TAX, BOMBAY Versus DWARKADAS K ETAN & CO.1988 PTD 689 · Supreme Court of India · 1960-12-01Read full judgment →
- BENGAL AND ASSAM INVESTORS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL1988 PTD 683 · Supreme Court of India · 1965-11-02Read full judgment →
- PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, WARD 'A', RAJKOT1988 PTD 665 · Supreme Court of India · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
- PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1988 PTD 521 · Supreme Court of India · 1976-08-10Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR, PATNA Versus AMAR SINGH GOWAMAL & SONS, JHARIA, DHANBAD1988 PTD 1055 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-17Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CALCUTTA Versus MRS. O.M.M. KINNISON1988 PTD 1047 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-08-29Read full judgment →
- INDO-ADEN SALT MANUFACTURING AND TRADING C0. P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY1988 PTD 1044 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. Versus BRITISH INDIA CORPORATION LTD.1988 PTD 1005 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
- SMT. PADMAVATI JAIKRISHNA Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJRAT1988 PTD 1001 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
- MESSRS S.P. GRAMOPHONE COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA1987 PTD 241 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
- H. ANRAJ Versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU1987 PTD 217 · Supreme Court of India · 1985-10-04Read full judgment →
- SMT. MAYA RANI PUNJ Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI1987 PTD 207 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- SCIENTIFIC ENGINEERING HOUSE (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ANDHRA PRADESH1987 PTD 197 · Supreme Court of India · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →