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.

• DAWOOD-UR-REHMAN Versus State2022 PTD 1611 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
• IKRAAM KHAN Versus State2022 PTD 1566 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-06
  post-arrest bailcustoms offenceliberty of the individualprohibitory clausetentative assessmentinterim charge sheet
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns bail applications filed by the applicants, who were implicated in an FIR registered under the Customs Act, 1969, for the alleged theft of goods from a Government Warehouse. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail, given that they were not named in the FIR, the investigation against them was complete, and they were no longer required for further investigation. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, emphasizing that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial rather than to punish them before conviction. The Court observed that the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that detention should not be used as a punitive measure. The key principle laid down is that liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted as a rule and refused as an exception, particularly when the accused is not a previous convict and the investigation is complete.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail to be granted as a rule in cases that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
  • Can bail be refused to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving them a taste of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• SANOFI-AVENTIS PAKISTAN LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2022 PTD 1205 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
• YUNUS TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad2022 PTD 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• AHMED NAWAZ Versus State2021 PTD 788 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-03
  customs fraudconvictionsentence modificationevasion of dutysentencing policyprolonged trialcustoms act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Judge, Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, convicting the appellants under Section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 for tax and duty fraud regarding the import of machinery through manipulated and forged documents, causing a substantial loss to the national exchequer. The appellants did not press their appeals on merits, instead pleading for leniency and modification of their sentences on humanitarian grounds due to the protracted trial lasting over 25 years and their advanced age/retirement. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could convert or modify a sentence of imprisonment to a fine in lieu thereof under the circumstances. The Sindh High Court held that while the conviction must be maintained as the appellants did not challenge the merits, the sentence of imprisonment could be converted into an enhanced fine in lieu of imprisonment, considering the sentencing policy of the Customs Act, 1969, the prolonged delay, and the lack of recovery efforts by the prosecution. The principle laid down is that where the statute provides alternative punishments of imprisonment or fine, and in view of exceptional circumstances like a prolonged trial and the primary objective of compensating revenue loss, the appellate court may convert a substantive sentence of imprisonment into an additional fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can convert a sentence of imprisonment into a fine in lieu of imprisonment under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the prolonged pendency of a criminal trial and appeal constitute a valid ground for mitigating a sentence?
  • Whether the alternative use of 'or' between imprisonment and fine in penal statutes grants the court discretion to impose only a fine without imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• FAZAL E RABBI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division/Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue2020 PTD 281 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus State2020 PTD 227 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-09
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailtax evasionSales Tax Actfake invoiceswhite-collar crimeadjudication proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, regarding alleged tax evasion through fake invoices and inadmissible input tax adjustments. Although the applicant was not named in the initial F.I.R., his name subsequently appeared in the supplementary final report as a beneficiary. During the proceedings, it was noted that the departmental tax assessment against the applicant had already been annulled in his favour by the Commissioner, Inland Revenue (Appeals), and no challenge to that appellate order was pending. The Sindh High Court held that while civil and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously and white-collar crimes demand strict scrutiny, the favorable adjudication finding regarding the tax liability provided a strong plea of innocence and distinguished the applicant's case. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant, ruling that the existence of an unchallenged exoneration in the tax adjudication proceedings created reasonable grounds for extending pre-arrest protection, subject to his regular attendance during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a favorable adjudication order in tax proceedings hold weight when considering a pre-arrest bail application in a related criminal case?
  • Can civil tax proceedings and criminal prosecutions for tax evasion take place simultaneously without mutually binding outcomes?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an accused is implicated merely as a beneficiary and has been exonerated by the departmental appellate authority?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYAZ KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2020 PTD 2200 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-24Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2020 PTD 1815 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-03Read full judgment →
• HBL STOCK FUND Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Naveed A. Andrabi, Anwar Kashif Mumtaz , Amjad Jawaid Hashmi, Ameer Bakhsh Metlo2020 PTD 1742 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-21Read full judgment →
• ORIENT ELECTRONIC (PVT.) LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Finance Karachi2017 PTD 2197 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-28Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, SUKKUR Versus RANIPUR CNG STATION, RANIPUR2017 PTD 1839 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II Versus SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING, COMPANY LTD., KARACHI2017 PTD 1832 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-02Read full judgment →
• NEW ALLIED ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division2017 PTD 130 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-20Read full judgment →
• CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE2016 PTD 961 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
• DIRECTOR GENERAL PAKISTAN COST GUARDS Versus IQBAL AFGHANI2016 PTD 900 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• CHINA HARBOUR ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Chairman2016 PTD 427 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD WAHEED Versus CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL2016 PTD 35 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ATHAR HAFEEZ KHAN Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance2016 PTD 2219 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-13Read full judgment →
• YUNUS TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary (Revenue Division)2016 PTD 1056 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI Versus EASTERN CARGO CENTRE2015 PTD 995 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-19Read full judgment →
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, through Additional Collector of Customs Versus EASTERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY2015 PTD 963 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-22Read full judgment →
• DOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman2015 PTD 948 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-23Read full judgment →
• SONERI INTERNATIONAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOM2015 PTD 902 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-27Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZUDDIN Versus State2015 PTD 668 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-10
  post-arrest bailsmugglingCustoms Actdeclaration of baggagefurther inquirybanned items
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under sections 2(s) and 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with the Import Policy, 2013 for alleged arms smuggling after parts of Glock pistols and magazines were recovered from his baggage at the Karachi airport. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a bail application before a High Court divisional bench against an order of a Special Appellate Court, whether the recovery of pistol parts constituted smuggling under the Customs Act or fell under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, and whether the absence of a proper declaration opportunity and the lack of customs officials as seizure witnesses warranted further inquiry. The court held that the bail application against the Special Appellate Court's order is maintainable before the High Court's divisional bench, that the provisions regarding smuggling are distinct from banned import lists, and that the circumstances surrounding the seizure and lack of declaration opportunity made the case one of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that an accused is entitled to bail even if an offence falls within the prohibitory clause when the case requires further inquiry, and the benefit of doubt must be extended at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a bail application maintainable before a divisional bench of the High Court against an order passed by a Special Appellate Court under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Whether the recovery of pistol parts from a passenger's baggage without an opportunity to make a customs declaration constitutes an offence of smuggling under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate customs officials as witnesses to a seizure memo create grounds for further inquiry at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• QADIR FABRICS Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Muhammad Afzal Awan , Abdul Aziz Buriro2015 PTD 2321 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• SAFE LIFE (PVT.) LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary/Chairman2015 PTD 1555 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-18Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus PAK ARAB PIPE LINE COMPANY LTD.2014 PTD 982 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-19Read full judgment →
• KHATRI BROTHERS Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2014 PTD 966 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-30Read full judgment →
• UMER FAROOQ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad2014 PTD 894 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mrs. SURAYYA BEGUM Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS2014 PTD 859 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-03Read full judgment →
• Chaudari SHABBIR HUSSAIN Versus State2014 PTD 612 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-11
  tax fraudpost-arrest bailwhite-collar crimesales tax refundfake invoicesnational exchequerprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused facing trial for alleged tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, involving the submission of fake invoices and the fraudulent claiming of sales tax refunds, causing a significant loss to the national exchequer. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the allegations of white-collar crime and the purported lack of final determination of tax liability. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case connecting the applicant to the alleged tax fraud. The court emphasized that in cases of white-collar crime, which are directed against society as a whole and the national economy, courts must exercise discretion strictly. The court further held that technical arguments regarding the validity of registered firms, the status of refund claims, and procedural notices were matters to be adjudicated by the trial court during the full trial, rather than at the bail stage. The principle established is that bail in white-collar crimes causing massive state financial loss requires a more stringent judicial approach.

  Questions settled

  • Does the commission of tax fraud causing significant loss to the national exchequer warrant a stricter approach in granting bail?
  • Are technical arguments regarding the validity of tax registration and refund processing procedures suitable for determination at the bail stage?
  • Is a prima facie case of tax fraud sufficient to deny bail even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• BILAL INTERNATIONAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division/Chairman2014 PTD 465 · Sindh High Court · 2013-12-19Read full judgment →
• SHOUKAT ALI Versus SPECIAL JUDGE (CUSTOMS AND TAXATION)2014 PTD 42 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-02Read full judgment →
• AL AMNA INTERNATIONAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary/ Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue2014 PTD 370 · Sindh High Court · 2013-10-21Read full judgment →
• WASEEM AHMED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman2014 PTD 1733 · Sindh High Court · 2011-03-20Read full judgment →
• SAADAT KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad2014 PTD 1615 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-30Read full judgment →
• RISHAD CHOUDRI Versus CANTONMENT BOARD, KARACHI2014 PTD 136 · Sindh High Court · 2013-09-09Read full judgment →
• PARAMOUNT INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad2014 PTD 1256 · Sindh High Court · 2014-03-14Read full judgment →
• MKB ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division (F.B.R.)2014 PTD 1159 · Sindh High Court · 2014-03-17Read full judgment →
• FOUNDATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, KARACHI Versus COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, KARACHI2014 PTD 1094 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GUL Versus MEMBER JUDICIAL, CUSTOMS APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, KARACHI2013 PTD 765 · Sindh High Court · 2012-01-29Read full judgment →
• TATA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division/FBR, Islamabad2013 PTD 1459 · Sindh High Court · 2013-03-01Read full judgment →
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus Shaikh SHAKEEL AHMED2011 PTD 495 · Sindh High Court · 2010-11-23Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus NATIONAL REFINERY LIMITED, KARACHI2010 PTD 737 · Sindh High Court · 2009-04-27Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI Versus N.I.T. LIMITED2010 PTD 553 · Sindh High Court · 2009-04-30Read full judgment →
• ARSHAD HUSSAIN Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS2010 PTD 104 · Sindh High Court · 2009-09-08Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION), LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, KARACHI Versus PARACHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI2010 PTD 1016 · Sindh High Court · 2010-02-02Read full judgment →
• INTERNATIONAL POWER GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX2009 PTD 50 · Sindh High Court · 2008-10-09Read full judgment →
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF PACCS, KARACHI Versus MUZAMMIL AHMAD2009 PTD 266 · Sindh High Court · 2008-12-05Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM FIBRES LTD. through Secretary/Director Finance Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary/Revenue Division2009 PTD 248 · Sindh High Court · 2008-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. HALEEMA PERVAIZ Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE `F' KARACHI2009 PTD 131 · Sindh High Court · 2008-11-06Read full judgment →
• WASEEM AHMED Versus State2009 PTD 1303 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-17
  post-arrest bailidentification paradeeye-witness testimonycriminal proceduredelay in FIRmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from a murder case where the applicant, Waseem Ahmed, sought post-arrest bail. The prosecution's case relied on an FIR lodged with delay, an extra-judicial confession made during interrogation in another crime, and an identification parade conducted in the ICU Ward of a hospital. The core legal question concerned whether sufficient incriminating material existed connecting the applicant to the crime to warrant the denial of bail, particularly in light of flaws in the identification parade and the sole eye-witness's failure to identify the applicant during trial coupled with the lack of cross-examination. The Sindh High Court held that the identification parade was a sham due to improper conditions in the ICU and lack of dummies, the eye-witness failed to identify the accused and was not produced for cross-examination, and discrepancies riddled the prosecution's case. The Court affirmed the grant of bail, establishing that questionable identification parades and uncross-examined sole eye-witness testimonies provide sufficient grounds for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence, entitling an accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does holding an identification parade in an intensive care unit (ICU) without proper dummies vitiate its evidentiary value for the purpose of bail?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the sole eye-witness fails to identify the accused in court and is not produced for cross-examination?
  • Whether a confession made during interrogation in a separate criminal case provides sufficient nexus to deny bail in a subsequent case?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJEED Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)2009 PTD 119 · Sindh High Court · 2005-09-08Read full judgment →
• QAZI GULFRAZ Versus PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN, PRESIDENT, SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD2008 PTD 812 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-08Read full judgment →
• INDUS BATTERY INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2008 PTD 246 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs MORO TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Chairman Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others2007 PTD 60 · Sindh High Court · 2006-09-29Read full judgment →
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus Messrs AYAZ AHMED2007 PTD 234 · Sindh High Court · 2006-10-10Read full judgment →
• ABDUL AZIZ MUHAMMAD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX2007 PTD 21 · Sindh High Court · 2006-03-03Read full judgment →
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) Versus Messrs SHABAZ INTERNATIONAL2007 PTD 202 · Sindh High Court · 2006-10-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad2007 PTD 198 · Sindh High Court · 2006-09-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs HABIB SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Law Officer Versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, SITE HYDERABAD2007 PTD 171 · Sindh High Court · 2006-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mrs. AFROZE SHAH through Attorney Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, Ministry of Finance and another2007 PTD 167 · Sindh High Court · 2005-03-31Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION-II)2007 PTD 1618 · Sindh High Court · 2007-03-20Read full judgment →
• MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD. through Company Secretary Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others2007 PTD 161 · Sindh High Court · 2006-09-20Read full judgment →
• KHURRAM JAMAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT)2007 PTD 131 · Sindh High Court · 2006-09-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs PAKISTAN DRY BATTERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION through Vice-Chairman Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2006 PTD 674 · Sindh High Court · 2006-02-06Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR BHUNDI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2006 PTD 670 · Sindh High Court · 2005-12-09Read full judgment →
• BABAR YOUNUS Versus State2006 PTD 2190 · Sindh High Court · 2006-06-02
  post-arrest bailtax fraudsales tax refundshow-cause noticediscretionary powermaterial evidencereasonable suspicion
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, a manufacturer-cum-exporter, sought post-arrest bail after being charged with tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, following the filing of refund claims. The prosecution alleged tax fraud based on the unavailability of suppliers at their registered addresses, leading to an inference that the invoices were false. The core legal question was whether the arrest and prosecution were justified given that the refund claims were still pending, no show-cause notice had been issued, and the investigation lacked concrete evidence of fraud. The Court held that prosecution and arrest under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, are not mandatory but discretionary, requiring material evidence rather than mere suspicion. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under the Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002, a show-cause notice is a mandatory procedural prerequisite before initiating proceedings for rejection of claims or prosecution. Finding no evidence of actual tax loss or fraud, and noting the applicant had been in custody for over a month, the Court granted bail, establishing that procedural compliance and material evidence are essential for initiating tax fraud proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the arrest and prosecution of a person under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, mandatory upon the commission of an offence?
  • Can an arrest for tax fraud be justified solely on the basis of 'reasonable suspicion' without material evidence?
  • Is the issuance of a show-cause notice a mandatory prerequisite under the Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002, before initiating prosecution for tax fraud?
  • Does the purchase of goods on credit constitute a confession of tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh RASHID AHMED Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, SPECIAL RECOVERY CELL, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS), KARACHI and 4 others2006 PTD 2006 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs CHEMITAX INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI2006 PTD 1387 · Sindh High Court · 2006-03-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs MARKATIA CORPORATION Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue and others2006 PTD 1290 · Sindh High Court · 2005-01-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs DEWAN FAROOQUE MOTORS LTD., KARACHI Versus CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI2006 PTD 1276 · Sindh High Court · 2006-02-23Read full judgment →
• SHAHZAD AHMED CORPORATION Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2005 PTD 23 · Sindh High Court · 2004-09-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs TARIQ BROTHERS Versus CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS and 3 others2005 PTD 186 · Sindh High Court · 2004-08-27Read full judgment →
• GHANDHARA NISSAN (PVT.) LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2005 PTD 1768 · Sindh High Court · 2004-09-10Read full judgment →
• HINOPAK MOTORS LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2003 PTD 760 · Sindh High Court · 2002-09-24Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE-B, KARACHI Versus PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LTD., KARACHI2003 PTD 1805 · Sindh High Court · 2002-07-22Read full judgment →
• MACPAC FILMS LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2001 PTD 1574 · Sindh High Court · 2001-01-19Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus NATIONAL AGRICULTURE LTD KARACHI2000 PTD 254 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. Versus PAKISTAN1999 PTD 1358 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
• 1994 PTD 4961994 PTD 496 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B', KARACHI Versus NATIONAL CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED1992 PTD 709 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
• KARACHI PROPERTIES INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1990 PTD 886 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD MOOSA SOOMRO1989 PTD 959 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• MESSRS HORMONE LABORATORIES LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI1988 PTD 84 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-04Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MESSRS ELLERMEN LINE LTD.1988 PTD 745 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-16Read full judgment →
• SHAHABUDDIN Versus INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-I, WEST ZONE, KARACHI1988 PTD 723 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CENTRAL, KARACHI Versus MST. NOOR BAI IBRAHIM1988 PTD 677 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-25Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MESSRS PAKISTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD.1988 PTD 66 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-17Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PICIC1988 PTD 626 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-24Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE 'A" Versus S. MAZHAR HUSSAIN1988 PTD 563 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-09Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE 'A', KARACHI Versus MESSRS PAKISTAN CABLES LTD., KARACHI1988 PTD 54 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PAKISTAN INVESTMENT LTD.1988 PTD 532 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION) Versus MESSRS NISHAT MILLS LTD. KARACHI1988 PTD 516 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-13Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI Versus MESSRS BEACH LUXURY HOTEL LIMITED1988 PTD 512 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-28Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INVESTIGATION, KARACHI Versus MESSRS NISHAT MILLS LTD., KARACHI1988 PTD 510 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-31Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PAKISTAN FISHERIES LIMITED1988 PTD 5 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-24Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE 'A', KARACHI Versus ALAMGIR ROYAN MILLS LTD.1988 PTD 492 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-29Read full judgment →
• THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF HIGH COURT OF SIND Versus THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, LAHORE1988 PTD 425 · Sindh High Court · 1987-12-07Read full judgment →