Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. Multan Electric Power Co. Limited (MEPCO) vs The Commissioner,2016 LHC 2114 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-05Read full judgment →
- M/s. Multan Electric Power Co. Limited (Mepc0) vs Commissioner,PLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Lah.) 80 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Member2016 P.C.T.L.R. 617 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Mubarak Textile Mills Limited vs Director (Enforcement)Appellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s. Mfmy Industries Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of2016 P.S.C. 66 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- M/s. Mfmy Industries Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of2016 P.S.C. 66 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter involved appeals against a High Court judgment in constitutional petitions, where the judgment was announced after a delay of fifteen months following the conclusion of hearings. The core legal question was whether a judgment pronounced after an inordinate delay is valid or if such delay vitiates the judicial decision. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment was invalid and could not be sustained because the excessive delay rendered the hearing ineffective and violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the matters were remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision. The Court established that while 'justice delayed is justice denied,' judgments must be pronounced within reasonable timeframes—30 days for trial courts, 45 days for district appellate courts, and 90 days for High Courts—to ensure the judge retains a precise recollection of arguments and to uphold the rule of audi alteram partem.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate delay in the pronouncement of a judgment after the conclusion of hearings vitiate the judgment?
- What is the reasonable time frame for a High Court to pronounce a judgment after the conclusion of arguments?
- Is a judgment pronounced after an unreasonable delay considered a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem?
- Are trial courts mandatorily required to pronounce judgments within thirty days under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- M/s. Mashallah Paper Board Mills, Faisalabad. vs Cul, Rja) Faisalabad.PTCL 2016 CL. 615 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-02-08Read full judgment →
- M/s. Magna Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd, Faisalabad vs The Cir (Zone-I)PTCL 2016 CL. 754 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2015-01-16Read full judgment →
- M/s. Macca Sugar Mills (Pvt) Limited vs The District Labour Officer,2016 NLR Labour 96 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the proceedings initiated by the District Labour Officer and another respondent against the Petitioner, a private limited company, following an application by a former employee seeking reinstatement after termination. The core legal question was whether the District Labour Officer possessed the statutory jurisdiction to initiate an inquiry or proceedings regarding an individual employee's grievance against their employer concerning termination of service. The Court observed that the respondents failed to cite any legal provision authorizing them to conduct such an inquiry or adjudicate upon the termination of an employee. The Court held that the respondents lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or initiate proceedings for reinstatement. Consequently, the Court declared the inquiry proceedings illegal and contrary to law, restraining the respondents from further action. The judgment establishes the principle that administrative or labour officers cannot exercise adjudicatory powers or initiate inquiries into employment termination disputes in the absence of explicit statutory authority, and that such grievances must be pursued before the competent forum established by law.
Questions settled- Does a District Labour Officer have the jurisdiction to initiate an inquiry into an employee's termination from service?
- Can administrative authorities exercise powers of inquiry without explicit statutory authorization?
- Is an inquiry initiated by a labour officer regarding an individual's termination of service legally valid in the absence of statutory power?
- M/s. M.Z. International vs The Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue2016 P.C.T.L.R. 199 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. M.Z. International vs Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue Audit-5PTCL 2016 CL. 513 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. M. Z. International vs Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue2016 PLJ Lahore 29 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Lucky Irani Circus through its Manager vs District Co-Ordination2016 PLJ Lahore 111 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-18Read full judgment →
- M/s. Lafarge Pakistan Cement Company vs District Collector, Chakwal,2016 P.S.C. 1322 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the classification of a mortgage deed for stamp duty purposes and the Collector's authority to recover penalties. The appellant challenged a notice from the District Collector demanding stamp duty and a ten-fold penalty, arguing that because possession of the mortgaged property was not transferred, the deed should be taxed as a bond under Article 40(b) of the Stamp Act, 1899, rather than as a conveyance under Article 40(a). Furthermore, the appellant contended the Collector lacked authority to recover duties under Section 48 of the Stamp Act, 1899, as the instrument was not produced in evidence. The Supreme Court held that since the agreement explicitly prohibited the mortgagor from parting with possession, the deed fell under Article 40(b). Regarding the Collector's powers, the Court affirmed that Section 33 allows the Collector to impound instruments that come before them in the performance of their functions, not just those produced in evidence. Consequently, the Court upheld the duty liability but reduced the penalty to two times the deficient amount, finding the initial ten-fold penalty excessive.
Questions settled- Does a mortgage deed where possession is not transferred to the mortgagee fall under Article 40(a) or Article 40(b) of the Stamp Act, 1899?
- Can a Collector recover stamp duty and penalties under Section 48 of the Stamp Act, 1899, if the instrument was not produced in evidence but came before the Collector in the performance of official functions?
- What is the scope of the phrase 'comes in the performance of his functions' under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899?
- Naeem vs State:2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-06Read full judgment →
- M/s. Khyber Tea and Food Company and another vs Collector of Customs2016 P.C.T.L.R. 232 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2015-08-06Read full judgment →
- M/s. Kashmir Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Federation through Secretary Revenue,2016 PLJ Lahore 627 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Jamil Ahmad Paint House, Lahore vs The Cir, Rto II Lahore2016 P.C.T.L.R. 906 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-06-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. J.K. Brothers Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner InlandPTCL 2016 CL. 507 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. J.B. Shoes, Karachi. vs Superintendent, Directorate of intelligence andPTCL 2016 CL. 656 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2015-10-14Read full judgment →
- M/s. Itteefaq Foundries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 C.L.R. 338 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
- M/s. Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited vs The Deputy2016 PTD 2685, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 840 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-09Read full judgment →
- M/s. Iqbal and Sons vs Federation of Pakistan and others2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1005 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-21Read full judgment →
- M/s. Infotech Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others2016 P.C.T.L.R. 885 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Infotech (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 otherss2016 PLJ Islamabad 529 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Huawei Technologies Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner InlandPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Isl.) 54, 2016 PTD 1799, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 398 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petition challenges the attachment of bank accounts and recovery of tax by the Inland Revenue authorities. The core legal questions concern whether coercive recovery measures are permissible while an appeal is pending before an independent forum, and whether the authorities complied with statutory notice requirements under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Court held that the attachment and recovery orders were without lawful authority. It established that coercive recovery measures cannot be adopted while an appeal is pending before an independent forum. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the notice issued under Section 137 was invalid for failing to provide the mandatory thirty-day payment period, and that the invocation of Section 140 without prior notice violated the principles of due process and fair trial. The key principle laid down is that tax authorities must strictly adhere to statutory notice periods, and coercive recovery actions, such as bank account attachment, require prior notice to the taxpayer to satisfy constitutional requirements of due process and fair trial, ensuring that no demand is enforced until scrutinized by an independent forum.
Questions settled- Can tax authorities initiate coercive recovery measures while an appeal is pending before an independent forum?
- Is a notice issued under Section 137 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 valid if it fails to provide the mandatory thirty-day period for tax payment?
- Does the invocation of Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 for bank account attachment require prior notice to the taxpayer?
- Does the failure to follow the prescribed manner for statutory notices vitiate subsequent tax recovery proceedings?
- M/s. Huawei Technologies Pakistan Ltd. vs Commissioner InlandPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Isl.) 54 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Hascol Petroleum Ltd. through Authorized Attorney vs M/s. Shell2016 CLC 1396 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns competing claims over the possession of a petrol pump site between two petroleum companies, Hascol Petroleum Limited and Shell Pakistan Limited. The core legal question was whether Hascol, having entered into a new lease agreement with the landladies after the expiry of Shell’s prior lease, was entitled to an injunction restraining Shell from asserting possession, given Shell’s claim of being a statutory tenant. The Court held that Shell, despite the expiry of the written lease, remained in possession as a statutory tenant and that the landladies and Hascol had failed to adopt the due course of law to regain possession. The Court emphasized that possession is a substantial legal right that cannot be forcibly reclaimed. Consequently, the Court dismissed Hascol’s application for an injunction, finding that Hascol failed to establish a prima facie case and did not approach the Court with clean hands, as they were aware of the ongoing dispute and Shell’s continued possession at the time of their agreement.
Questions settled- Can a landlord forcibly dispossess a statutory tenant upon the expiry of a lease agreement?
- Does a statutory tenant retain possession rights after the expiry of a written lease agreement?
- Is a party entitled to injunctive relief if they fail to establish a prima facie case and do not approach the court with clean hands?
- M/s. Haq Bahu Sugar Mills Private Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 138, 2016 PTD 955, 2016 C.L.R. 367 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-01-11Read full judgment →
- M/s. Haq Bahu Sugar Mills Private Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2016 PLJ Islamabad 138 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. HanIf Metal Store, etc. vs The Bank of Punjab, etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1023 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-28Read full judgment →
- M/s. Habib Industries (Pvt.) Ltd./ karachi vs The I.A.C. Range-III, Companies-2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1086 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the revision of wealth tax assessments by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner (IAC) under Section 17-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. The core legal question was whether a successor IAC has the jurisdiction to revise an assessment order that was previously finalized by the Assessing Officer under the supervision and approval of a predecessor IAC. The Appellate Tribunal held that the successor IAC acted without jurisdiction. The Tribunal ruled that the power of revision under Section 17-B is quasi-judicial and requires the order to be both "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interest of revenue." It established that where an assessment is framed after conscious application of mind and consultation with the IAC, a successor IAC cannot revise it based merely on a change of opinion or disagreement. Furthermore, the Tribunal affirmed the principle that fiscal statutes must be strictly construed, and in cases of ambiguity, interpretations favorable to the taxpayer must prevail. Consequently, the Tribunal annulled the IAC's revision orders and restored the original assessment orders.
Questions settled- Can a successor Inspecting Additional Commissioner revise an assessment order previously finalized under the supervision and approval of a predecessor?
- Does the power of revision under Section 17-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, allow for a change of opinion by the revising authority?
- What are the necessary conditions for an assessment order to be considered 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to the interest of revenue' under Section 17-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963?
- Should ambiguities in fiscal statutes be resolved in favor of the taxpayer or the state?
- M/s. Habib Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs M/s. State Life Insurance Corporation of2016 SHC 8 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-10Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ghandhara Leasing Company Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- (1) M/s. Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Limited (2) M/s. Macter International Limited (3)2016 SHC 11 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-07Read full judgment →
- M/s. Genertech Pakistan Limited Mr. Jahangir Elahi, Chief Executive Mr.Appellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s. General Tyre and Rubber Company of Pakistan Limited Pak-KuwaitAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s. Flying Cement Company Ltd. vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland2016 LHC 3501, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1045 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Fidelity Investment Bank Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 1999-06-09Read full judgment →
- M/s. Empire Electronics vs Collector of Custom and another2016 P.C.T.L.R. 322 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-05Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ehsan Chappal Store (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs C.LR., R.T.O.-II, Lahore2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1063 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-07-09Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ehsan Chappal Store (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs C.I.R., R.T.O.-II, Lahore2016 P.C.T.L.R. 355 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-07-09Read full judgment →
- M/s. Dawlance United Refrigeration Industries Private Limited vs2016 PLJ Lahore 217 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Daewoo Pakistan Express Bus Services Limited vs Federation ofPTCL 2016 CL. 490 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. D.S. Textile Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2016 C.L.R. 1229 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-20Read full judgment →
- M/s. Chicago Metal Works vs Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2016 PTD 1797, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 832 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2015-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a complaint filed by an Association of Persons (AOP) against the revenue department for failing to implement appellate orders and issue tax refunds for the years 2007, 2008, and 2009. The complainant, having secured favorable orders from the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, alleged that the department illegally withheld a portion of the refund, citing non-payment of the Workers Welfare Fund without passing necessary orders. The core legal question was whether the department could withhold refunds and delay giving effect to appellate decisions based on the pendency of similar issues in other cases before higher courts. The Federal Tax Ombudsman held that the department's failure to implement the final appellate orders and the inordinate delay in issuing refunds constituted maladministration. The Ombudsman ruled that the mere pendency of similar legal issues in other cases before the Supreme Court does not authorize the department to ignore binding appellate orders or withhold refunds, and directed the department to issue the refunds within 21 days.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of similar legal issues in other cases before the Supreme Court authorize the tax department to withhold refunds or ignore binding appellate orders?
- Does the failure of the tax department to give effect to appellate orders and issue refunds constitute maladministration under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000?
- Is the tax department required to pass separate orders when withholding refunds on account of the Workers Welfare Fund?
- M/s. Cherat Packaging (Ltd.) vs Government of Pakistan, etc.2016 PHC 5, 2016 PTD 2257, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 550 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two writ petitions filed by approved Trusts and Funds challenging a Federal Board of Revenue circular. The petitioners contended that because their income is exempt under Clause 47B of Part-IV of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, they are not required to obtain or produce exemption certificates under Section 159 to prevent withholding agents from deducting tax at source under Section 151. The core legal question was whether such exemption status absolves a taxpayer from complying with the procedural machinery for tax exemption. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the requirement to produce an exemption certificate is a necessary procedural safeguard to prevent the abuse of tax exemptions. The Court established that while charging sections are strictly construed in favor of the subject, machinery provisions—such as those requiring exemption certificates—must be liberally construed to ensure the proper realization of tax and to prevent unauthorized claims of exemption. Consequently, approved funds must still obtain and produce valid exemption certificates to the withholding agent to avail the benefit of non-deduction.
Questions settled- Are approved funds exempt from tax under Clause 47B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 required to produce an exemption certificate under Section 159 to avoid withholding tax?
- Does the Federal Board of Revenue have the authority to issue circulars interpreting tax provisions under Section 206 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?
- How should machinery provisions of tax legislation be construed in relation to charging sections?
- M/s. Central Forest Products Limited Mr. Abdul Aziz Yagoob,Chief ExecutiveAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s. Central Forest Products Limited and 7 others vs Head of Department2016 P.C.T.L.R. 695 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2015-09-07Read full judgment →
- M/s. Capital Poultry Feed & Dall Mills, etc. vs Presiding Officer of2016 PLJ Islamabad 430 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Bisma Textile Mills Limited, Lahore vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 295 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-20Read full judgment →
- M/s. Bisma Textile Mills Limited, Lahore through Chief Executive vs2016 PLJ Lahore 503 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Bhanei4,0 Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others2016 SCMR 1531, 2016 PLJ SC 698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the denial of a customs duty exemption. The appellant imported textile machinery, filing an ex-bond bill of entry on November 18, 1990. The appellant sought the benefit of an SRO dated December 13, 1990, which granted exemptions for machinery imported on or after December 1, 1990. The customs authorities denied the exemption, asserting that the import occurred prior to the SRO's effective date. The core legal question was whether the date of "import" for the purpose of claiming a tax exemption is determined by the physical arrival of goods or the subsequent ex-bonding process. The Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit, affirming that "import" refers to the act of bringing goods into the country, not the date of clearance from a warehouse. The Court ruled that exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and the crucial date for determining eligibility is the filing of the bill of entry. Consequently, the appellant was ineligible for the exemption as the import process predated the SRO.
Questions settled- Does the term 'import' under the Customs Act, 1969, refer to the physical act of bringing goods into the country or the subsequent clearance from a warehouse?
- Is the date of filing an ex-bond bill of entry the determining factor for eligibility under a tax exemption notification?
- Should exemption notifications be construed strictly when determining the effective date of applicability for imported goods?
- M/s. Beach Luxury Hotels, Karachi vs M/s. Anas Muneer Ltd., etc.2016 P.S.C. 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property (Nedous Hotel) between an auction purchaser (Appellant) and a transferee (Respondent). The core legal questions were whether the Settlement Department retained jurisdiction to reopen the case following the enactment of Ordinance No. II of 1962, and whether the Respondent was legally entitled to the transfer of two distinct properties. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Department acted within its authority. The Court found that the Respondent had obtained two properties through misrepresentation, violating the statutory limit of one property per non-claimant. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Settlement authorities possess inherent powers to recall orders procured through fraud or concealment of material facts, independent of statutory revision powers. The judgment establishes that a transferee cannot claim multiple properties where the law restricts entitlement to one, and that authorities retain inherent jurisdiction to correct fraudulent transfers, regardless of subsequent statutory amendments limiting revisional powers.
Questions settled- Does the Settlement Department possess inherent power to recall an order procured through fraud or misrepresentation independent of statutory revision powers?
- Can a non-claimant displaced person be legally transferred more than one property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Did the enactment of Ordinance No. II of 1962 completely divest the Settlement Department of jurisdiction to reopen cases involving fraud?
- M/s. B.P. Pakistan Exploration and Production Inc. vs The Cir, Zone-III, Ltu,2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1054 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-12-09Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ayub Textile Industries through Proprietor vs CommissionerPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Lah.) 67 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-29Read full judgment →
- M/s. Asla Poultry Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federal Board of Revenue, etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 455 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
- M/s. Asia Poultry Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federal Board of Revenue and othersPTCL 2016 CL. 521 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-14Read full judgment →
- M/s. Arshad Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. through its GeneralManager Finance vs2016 P.C.T.L.R. 312 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Arif Habib Corporation Limited (formerly, Arif Habib Securities LimitedAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s. Alpha Insurance Co. Limited vs M/s. Poly Foils (Pvt.) Ltd and Another2016 SHC 69 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-28Read full judgment →
- M/s. Alfalah Medicos and another vs Government of Punjab and others2016 LHC 2136, K.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 288 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-06Read full judgment →
- M/s. Al-Haj Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited, through its authorized officer vs2016 P.C.T.L.R. 578 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Al-Hadid Mechanical Engineers and 4 others vs M/s. Habib Bank2016 LHC 597, 2016 PLJ Lahore 778 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s United Industries Limited. Appellant No 1 M.Akbar Muggo s/o HaneefAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s United Foam Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. etc vs M/s Joy Foam (Pvt.) Ltd etc2016 LHC 1784 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-09Read full judgment →
- M/s Time Trading Co. vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2016 LHC 1600 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Tianshi International Pakistan Co. (Pvt.) Ltd vs Mr. Nazir AhmedAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Telephone Industries of Pakistan Pvt. Etc. vs Tip Employees etc.2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated writ petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Telephone Industries of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether contempt proceedings could be sustained for the alleged non-compliance with an interim order issued by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, given that the underlying grievance petition was subsequently dismissed by the Labour Court for lack of jurisdiction, as the establishment was determined to have trans-provincial status. The Court held that because the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction over the dispute, the interim directions issued by the Labour Appellate Tribunal were rendered redundant and without lawful authority. Consequently, the Court ruled that disobedience of an order passed by a forum lacking jurisdiction, which is also per incuriam and contrary to Supreme Court precedent, cannot constitute contempt. The contempt proceedings were quashed, and the petitions were allowed, with the respondents granted liberty to pursue their claims before the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Can contempt proceedings be sustained for the violation of an order passed by a tribunal that lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter?
- Does an interim order issued by a Labour Appellate Tribunal survive if the underlying grievance petition is subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction?
- Does the disobedience of an order passed per incuriam constitute contempt of court?
- M/s Sarwar & Company (Pvt.) Limited. vs The Appellate Tribunal Revenue2016 LHC 2782 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-27Read full judgment →
- M/s Pakistan Packages (Pvt.) Ltd vs M/s Adamjee Insurance CompanySecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Pakistan Ordnance Factories through its, Manager Legal Wah Cantt.2016 LHC 3099 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-07Read full judgment →
- M/s Pak Gen Power Ltd. vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, etc.2016 LHC 3352 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
- M/s Nazir Cotton Mills Limited vs Securities and Exchange Commission ofAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Mustafa Impex, Karachi in C.As.1428 & 1429/2016 and 8 others vs The2016 SCP 60 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals filed by importers of cellular phones and textile goods against the dismissal of their constitution petitions by the Islamabad High Court. The appellants challenged sales tax exemption withdrawals and rate modifications issued via notifications under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, on the ground that they were not issued by the competent authority. The core legal questions examined the definition of the 'Federal Government', the nature and extent of executive authority, and the mandatory nature of the Rules of Business, 1973, specifically concerning fiscal measures and subordinate legislation. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Government strictly comprises the Cabinet (the Prime Minister and Federal Ministers collectively) and that statutory powers vested in the Federal Government—particularly levy, abolition, or alteration of taxes—cannot be exercised solely by an individual minister, secretary, or the Prime Minister without prior Cabinet approval. The Court laid down that the Rules of Business are mandatory, and actions bypassing them or rule 16(2) allowing the Prime Minister to bypass the Cabinet are ultra vires the Constitution. Consequently, the impugned notifications were struck down and declared null and void.
Questions settled- Who constitutes the 'Federal Government' under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Are the provisions of the Rules of Business, 1973 mandatory or directory for the exercise of executive power?
- Can the Prime Minister or an individual Minister lawfully exercise statutory powers reserved for the Federal Government without the prior approval of the Cabinet?
- Is the grant of tax exemptions or modification of tax rates through subordinate legislation valid when issued solely on the approval of a Secretary or Advisor without Cabinet sanction?
- Does rule 16(2) of the Rules of Business, 1973 empowering the Prime Minister to bypass the Cabinet violate the Constitution?
- M/s Mia Corporation (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan PWD and others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-08-31Read full judgment →
- M/s Mari Gas Company Limited through Managing Director and another2016 PLC (C.S.) 430 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenges an appellate court's judgment regarding the calculation of an employee's gratuity. The core legal question was whether the respondent's probationary period should be included in his 'eligible service' for gratuity purposes, and whether his gratuity should be calculated based on his gross salary rather than his basic salary. The court held that, under the company's Trust Deed and rules, once an employee is confirmed, their probationary period constitutes 'eligible service.' The court rejected the company's attempt to exclude the probationary period, noting that the company had previously allowed the respondent to participate in contributory plans effective from his probationary start date, and that the Trust Deed takes precedence over company rules in case of conflict. Consequently, the court affirmed the respondent's entitlement to gratuity calculated on a gross salary basis. However, the court set aside the appellate court's award of unquantified damages, ruling that such compensation cannot be granted without proper quantification and evidence. The principle established is that probationary service, upon confirmation, qualifies as eligible service for gratuity calculations.
Questions settled- Does the probationary period of an employee count towards 'eligible service' for the purpose of calculating gratuity upon confirmation?
- Should a company's internal rules be interpreted in light of the overarching Trust Deed when determining employee benefits?
- Can a court award unquantified damages in a civil suit for gratuity?
- Is an employer permitted to exclude a probationary period from service calculations if the employee was previously treated as eligible for contributory plans during that same period?
- M/s Lagarge Pakistan Cement Company vs District Collector, Chakwal,2016 SCP 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals arose from a judgment dismissing a writ petition and a civil revision concerning the assessment of stamp-duty on a mortgage-deed executed to secure a foreign loan. The core legal questions involved whether the mortgage-deed attracted stamp-duty under Article 40(a) or Article 40(b) of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1899 based on possession, and whether the Collector was empowered under Section 48 to recover duties and penalties when an instrument came before him in the performance of his functions. The Supreme Court held that since possession of the mortgaged property was not given to the mortgagee under the terms of the agreement, the instrument fell under Article 40(b) read with Article 15 of the Stamp Act 1899, attracting duty as a bond rather than a conveyance. Furthermore, the Court held that the Collector could validly impound and recover duties and penalties when an instrument came before him in the performance of his functions under Section 33. The Court partially allowed the appeal by reducing the penalty from five times to two times the deficient duty.
Questions settled- Whether a mortgage-deed where possession is not given to the mortgagee attracts stamp-duty as a conveyance or as a bond?
- Can the Collector recover duties and penalties under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act 1899 if an instrument is not produced in evidence but comes before him in the performance of his functions?
- What is the proper interpretation of Article 40 of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1899 regarding the transfer of possession in mortgage-deeds?
- M/s KHZ Associates (Pvt.) Ltd vs Executive Director, Insurance Division,Appellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Kashmir Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Federation through Secretary Revenue, etc.2016 LHC 86 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-13Read full judgment →
- M/s Iqbal & Sons vs Federation of Pakistan & others2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1005, 2016 LHC 2973 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-27Read full judgment →
- M/s Highlink Capital (Pvt.) Limited vs Director (BR & Icw), MarketAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Hanif Metal Store etc. vs The Bank of Punjab etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1023, 2016 LHC 2950 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-28Read full judgment →
- M/s Flying Cement Company Ltd. vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue2016 LHC 3501 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-07Read full judgment →
- M/s First National Equities Limited vs Mr. Imran Inayat Butt Director/HODAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s First National Equities Limited vs Director/HOD (MSRD), Securities andAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Faisal Motors vs Model Collector of Customs (East) and others2016 SHC · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Exide Pakistan Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
- M/s Excel Financial Services (Pvt.) Ltd Room No 212, Siddique Trade CentreAppellate Bench of Securities And Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s D.S. Textile Limited. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2016 LHC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-11Read full judgment →
- M/s Colony Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Province of Punjab and others2016 LHC 2204 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-02Read full judgment →
- M/s Climax Engineering Company Limited vs Head of DepartmentAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- (1) M/s China Machinery Engineering Corporation (Cmec), Association of2016 SC AJK 266 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These cross-appeals arose from a judgment of the High Court concerning income tax assessments of M/s China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC), a foreign corporation executing hydropower project works in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The core legal question centered on whether the writ petition and subsequent appeals were competently instituted given that the underlying power of attorney executed abroad failed to comply with mandatory statutory authentication requirements. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that a power of attorney executed in a foreign country must be authenticated by the prescribed functionaries under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order and the Registration Act, and in the absence of valid authentication and proof of the executant's authority, any legal proceedings initiated on its strength are a nullity. The court laid down the principle that courts cannot presume a power of attorney to be valid unless statutory execution and authentication requirements are strictly fulfilled, and proceedings instituted without a valid authorization are incompetent and liable to be dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a power of attorney executed in a foreign country requires authentication by designated authorities to be legally effective in judicial proceedings?
- Can legal proceedings instituted on the basis of an unauthenticated power of attorney be sustained?
- Whether a court is bound to presume the validity of a power of attorney under Article 95 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without strict compliance with its mandatory requirements?
- M/s Chiltan Ghee Mills, Quetta etc. vs Deputy Collector of Sales Tax2016 SCP 88 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a ghee manufacturer, sought a refund of sales tax paid on raw materials (tin plates) used to manufacture containers, arguing that because its final product was exempt from sales tax under SRO 580(I)/91, the input tax paid on the raw materials should be refundable. The core legal question was whether a registered person is entitled to claim a refund of input sales tax paid on raw materials used in the production of goods that are exempt from sales tax. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Sales Tax Department was correct in refusing the refund. The Court clarified that under Sections 7 and 8(1)(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, input tax adjustment or refund is only available for 'taxable supplies.' Consequently, where supplies are exempt from sales tax, the input tax paid on raw materials used for those exempt supplies cannot be refunded, as the law does not provide for such a refund merely because the final product is exempt.
Questions settled- Is a registered person entitled to claim a refund of input sales tax paid on raw materials used in the manufacture of goods that are exempt from sales tax?
- Does the exemption of a final product from sales tax liability entitle a manufacturer to a refund of input tax paid on raw materials?
- Can input tax adjustment be claimed under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for goods that do not fall within the definition of taxable supplies?
- M/s Cherat Packaging Ltd vs Govt of Pakistan etc2016 PHC 5 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two writ petitions filed by corporate entities seeking to declare illegal the interpretation and directions issued by the Federal Board of Revenue regarding the requirement of a valid tax exemption certificate for claiming tax exemptions under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question is whether recognized provident and gratuity funds, which enjoy statutory exemption from tax deduction under Clause 47B of Part-IV of the Second Schedule to the Ordinance, are still required to obtain and produce an exemption certificate under Section 159 to prevent withholding agents from deducting tax on profits under Section 151. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that procedural machinery provisions designed to prevent the abuse of tax exemptions must be strictly construed in favor of the Revenue. The court laid down the principle that although certain funds are statutorily exempt from tax withholding, they must nonetheless fulfill procedural requirements such as obtaining an exemption certificate under Section 159 to ensure proper regulatory checks and balances against potential misuse.
Questions settled- Whether recognized provident and gratuity funds exempt under Clause 47B of Part-IV of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are required to obtain and produce an exemption certificate under Section 159 to avoid tax deduction under Section 151?
- Does the Federal Board of Revenue possess the authority under Section 206 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to issue circulars and interpretive guidance to its officers regarding tax exemptions?
- How should procedural and machinery provisions in fiscal statutes be construed when balancing tax exemptions against tax recovery mechanisms?
- M/s Cargill Holdings vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-15Read full judgment →
- M/s Capital Insurance Company Limited vs Executive Director, (InsuranceAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Asian Leasing Corp. Ltd. through its Chief Executive, Mr. Arif AhmedAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Asfaq Trading Company vs Collector of Customs, Lahore2016 LHC 959 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-25Read full judgment →
- M/s Alfalah Medicos and another vs Government of Punjab and others2016 LHC 2136 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-05Read full judgment →