Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,813 judgments in total.

• Dilbagh Singh vs State of Punjab2016 PSC Crl. 833 · Supreme Court of India · 2016-11-28
  narcotic drugspoppy huskconscious possessionsearch and seizureprocedural complianceSection 50 NDPS ActSection 57 NDPS Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, following the recovery of poppy husk from a vehicle he was traveling in. The core legal questions were whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of the Act were violated, thereby vitiating the conviction. The Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the Act, which concerns the search of a person, is inapplicable when the contraband is recovered from a vehicle rather than the person of the accused. Regarding Section 57, the Court found that the prosecution had demonstrated substantial compliance by reporting the arrest and seizure to the superior officer without delay. The Court affirmed that Section 57 is not strictly mandatory to the extent that its non-compliance automatically invalidates a conviction; rather, it requires an assessment of whether any prejudice was caused to the accused. Finding no procedural illegality or failure of justice, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 apply to the search of a vehicle?
  • Is the requirement under Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 to report an arrest or seizure to a superior officer mandatory in a way that its non-compliance automatically vitiates a conviction?
  • What is the standard for determining whether non-compliance with procedural instructions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 invalidates a search or arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan vs Ali Nawaz and others2016 MLD 963 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-01
  malicious prosecutiondamagesburden of proofcivil revisionmisreading of evidenceprivate complaintcompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for damages for malicious prosecution filed by the respondents against the petitioner. The petitioner had previously filed a private criminal complaint against the respondents under sections 506 and 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was later withdrawn following a compromise, leading to the respondents' acquittal. The respondents subsequently sued for damages, and the trial court decreed the suits in their favor, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The Lahore High Court, in revision, examined the essential ingredients required to establish a claim for malicious prosecution, specifically noting that the plaintiff must prove prosecution by the defendant, a favorable outcome, lack of reasonable and probable cause, malice, interference with liberty/reputation, and actual damage. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence regarding reputational harm or mental agony. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that acquittal based on a compromise does not automatically satisfy the burden of proof for malicious prosecution. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments due to misreading and non-reading of evidence and dismissed the suits.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients a plaintiff must establish to succeed in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
  • Does an acquittal based on the withdrawal of a complaint following a compromise automatically entitle the accused to damages for malicious prosecution?
  • Is a decree for damages sustainable if the plaintiff fails to provide evidence regarding reputational harm or mental agony?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain and others vs Province of Sindh and others2016 PLD Supreme Court 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitionadditional compensationstatutory interpretationpurposive constructionrepeal of lawsdeeming clauselachespast and closed transactionconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerned the interpretation and applicability of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended in Sindh), which provided for 15% annual additional compensation from the date of Section 4 notification to the date of payment. The Court examined whether this additional compensation applied to the entire compensation amount or only to unpaid portions, and the effect of the subsequent repeal of Section 28-A by the Land Acquisition (Sindh Amendment) Act, 2009. The Court held that Section 28-A was intended as an inducement for prompt payment rather than a premium for land owners; thus, it applies only to outstanding amounts, not sums already received. Furthermore, the Court observed that the 2009 repeal, which used 'deeming' language to treat the section as if it never existed, rendered the provision non est for pending litigations. Regarding the constitutional petitions filed after fourteen years, the Court ruled they were barred by the doctrine of laches and the principle of past and closed transactions, as discretionary relief cannot be granted to those who slumber over their rights.

  Read full judgment →
• Dil Murad Golo, Assistant Superintendent Post Office, Gpo, Sukkur vs Director General, Postal Services; Directorate General Office, Islamabad and otherss2016 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 299 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service tribunaldismissal from servicemisconductinefficiencydepartmental inquirypostal serviceimposition of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Assistant Superintendent Post Office, challenged his dismissal from service for inefficiency, misconduct, and corruption, which resulted from financial losses and fraudulent excess payments in the postal service during his tenure. The departmental appellate authority had previously modified the dismissal to a reduction to the minimum of his present pay scale for five years. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, inquiry, and the imposed penalties were lawful and sustainable given the appellant's failure to supervise and adhere to the Post Office Manual. The Federal Service Tribunal held that while direct embezzlement was not conclusively proven, the appellant's inefficiency and failure to discharge supervisory duties in accordance with the manual were established beyond doubt. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the modified penalty imposed by the departmental authority. The key principle laid down is that failure to supervise and maintain discipline as required by departmental manuals constitutes established inefficiency and misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to supervise monetary transactions and adhere to the Post Office Manual constitutes inefficiency and misconduct?
  • Can a departmental appellate authority modify a penalty of dismissal from service to reduction to the minimum of the pay scale?
  • Does the deposit of a proportionate amount of embezzled money by family members indicate admission of guilt or awareness of irregularities?
  • Whether an inquiry officer's failure to examine witnesses in the presence of the accused vitiates the entire departmental inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Digicom Trading (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division_Chairman and another2016 PTD 648, PTCL 2025 CL. 701 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-29Read full judgment →
• Diamond Industries Ltd. Malik Bagh, Baradari Road Shahdara, Lahore vs 1.Appellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2003-02-06Read full judgment →
• Diamond Industries Limited vs Executive Director (CLD) Securities and Exchange Commission of PakistanAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2011-12-22Read full judgment →
• Diamond Industries Limited vs Commissioner (Enforcement), SecuritiesAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• DG, Mda, etc. vs Nasir Ahmad2016 C.L.R. 175 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-08Read full judgment →
• Dewan Salman Fibre Ltd. etc. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M_O Finance etcPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Isl.) 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dewan Salman Fibre Limited vs Dewan Petroleum (Pvt.) Limited2016 P.C.T.L.R. 407, 2016 CLD 1049 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-15
  Annual General Meetingcompanies ordinanceinvalidating general meetingmaterial defect in noticeproxyquorumshareholder rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 160-A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking to have the proceedings of the Annual General Meeting held on 30.04.2015 and the resolution passed therein declared invalid due to alleged material defects and omissions in the notice and irregularities in the meeting's proceedings. The core legal questions revolved around the scope of Section 160-A, the statutory requirements for holding an Annual General Meeting, and whether the petitioner established that any defect, omission, or irregularity prevented it from effectively exercising its rights as a shareholder. The Islamabad High Court held that under Section 160-A, a general meeting will not be declared invalid for mere technical defects or omissions unless the petitioner proves that the defect or irregularity was 'material' and had the direct effect of prejudicing or preventing the members from effectively exercising their rights. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material defect or omission in the notice or any irregularity that prevented it from exercising its rights, noting that the petitioner's representative voluntarily chose to abstain from the meeting. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to invoke Section 160-A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 for declaring a general meeting invalid?
  • Does every technical defect or omission in a notice for an Annual General Meeting render the meeting invalid under Section 160-A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Whether the failure to attach a proxy form to the notice of an Annual General Meeting constitutes a material omission sufficient to invalidate the meeting?
  • Is a member entitled to challenge the validity of a general meeting without showing that they were personally prevented from effectively exercising their rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Dewan Sadda vs State etc.PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 555 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-14Read full judgment →
• Dewan Petroleum (Pvt.) Limited vs Director, Corporatisation and Compliance Department, Securities and Exchange Commission of PakistanAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Dewan Muhammad Yousuf Farooqui, Chief Executive Dewan AbdulAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Deputy Manager PESCO WAPDA Abbotabad and 2 others vs Ali Match2016 CLC 1133 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-10
  revision petitionelectricity chargesminimum chargesmaintainability of petitioncorporate bodyboard resolutionWAPDAPESCO
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the respondents' suit for declaration and recovery of an amount paid as fixed/minimum electricity charges during a period when the industrial unit remained closed was decreed. The core legal question was whether PESCO/WAPDA could legally recover minimum charges and fixed charges without legal backing and whether a revision petition filed on behalf of a corporate body without proper authorization or board resolution is maintainable. The Peshawar High Court held that the demand for minimum charges without legal backing and in violation of applicable circulars was illegal, and that a petition filed on behalf of a company or corporate body by an unauthorized person without a board resolution is not maintainable. The court laid down the principle that proceedings initiated on behalf of a company are incompetent unless duly authorized by a resolution of the Board of Directors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power distribution company can recover minimum or fixed charges from an electricity consumer for a period when the factory remained closed and disconnected?
  • Is a revision petition or suit filed on behalf of a corporate body or company maintainable without a resolution passed by the Board of Directors authorizing the same?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the refund of illegally recovered electricity charges warrant interference in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Deputy Land Commissioner/D.C., Swat and 2 others vs Shahzada Aman2016 CLC 600 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-26
  civil court jurisdictionrevision petitiondeclaration and permanent injunctionstate propertyrevenue entriesmartial law regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents regarding the suit property was decreed. The core legal questions involved whether the suit property formed part of state-resumed land under specific Martial Law Regulations and Notifications, and whether the civil court's jurisdiction was ousted to examine the matter and correct revenue entries. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the suit property was located in a different area ('Wand Kas') and was lawfully purchased and gifted prior to the resumption notifications targeting the properties of the former Ruler of Swat, rendering the relevant Martial Law Regulations inapplicable. The court laid down the principle that the ouster of civil court jurisdiction does not apply to orders passed without jurisdiction or in excess of authority by special tribunals or state functionaries, and civil courts retain plenary jurisdiction to examine the legality of such actions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted to entertain a suit regarding properties erroneously treated as state-resumed land?
  • Do Martial Law Regulations of 1972 apply to properties alienated prior to the promulgation and not owned by the former Ruler at the relevant time?
  • Can a civil court correct wrong revenue entries and examine orders passed by special tribunals without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Deputy Inspector General Police, Muzaffarabad. Principal Police Training2016-SC AJK-146 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-04-15
  limitationservice tribunalcondonation of delaywrong forumjurisdiction of civil courtsterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from the judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby a civil servant's appeal against his retirement order was accepted and he was reinstated with back benefits. The core legal question revolves around whether the appeal filed before the Service Tribunal was barred by limitation and whether the time spent prosecuting a matter before a civil court could be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred and that section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is excluded under section 9 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, as only sections 5 and 12 are made applicable. Furthermore, prosecution of a matter at the wrong forum when jurisdiction is clearly barred by constitutional provisions does not constitute good faith or due diligence. The key principle laid down is that the question of limitation must be addressed and resolved before a court or tribunal can enter into the merits of a case, and a party seeking condonation of delay must explain each day's delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applicable to proceedings before the Service Tribunal under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975?
  • Does the prosecution of a matter before a civil court in service matters constitute good faith and due diligence for the purpose of condonation of delay?
  • Is it mandatory for a court or tribunal to resolve the question of limitation before examining a case on its merits?
  • Can wrong advice of counsel to approach a wrong forum be treated as a valid ground for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Department of Transport, Government of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Transport vs Muhammad Rafique and 3 others2016 MLD 1500 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-02Read full judgment →
• Delta Innovations Ltd. 4. Dewan Mushtaq Motors (Pvt) Ltd. Delta ClimateAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Dehran vs State, etcsPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 826 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-23
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtchance witnesscorroborationacquittalimprovements in testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b), Section 337-A(i), and Section 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising out of a murder case. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent ocular accounts, independent corroboration, and reliable recoveries, and whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained when co-accused on the same set of evidence were acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful, improvements were made at trial, ocular testimony lacked independent corroboration, and the recovered brick was neither blood-stained nor incriminating. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The ratio laid down is that where the majority of accused persons are acquitted on the same set of evidence, the conviction of remaining co-accused cannot be sustained without strong and independent corroboration, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of an appellant can be sustained on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused have already been acquitted without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does the testimony of chance witnesses require justifiable reasons to establish their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single reasonable circumstance creates doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a delayed recovery of a weapon or object that is not blood-stained?
  Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority, Lahore vs Punjab Co-operative Housing2016 KLR S.C. 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  co-operative societiesnotice to registrarcantonment boardpublic roadsright of wayhousing schemecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, Section 273 and Section 108 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, regarding whether prior notice is mandatory for outsiders filing suits against co-operative societies, the requirement of notice against Cantonment Boards, and the public character of roads constructed within housing schemes. The Supreme Court held that Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, which requires a two-month notice to the Registrar before instituting a suit against a society, is limited to disputes touching the internal business of the society as contemplated under Section 54 of the Act, and does not apply to general civil disputes with outsiders such as right-of-way claims over roads. Furthermore, notice under Section 273 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, is not required when no relief or claim is asserted against the Cantonment Board, and suits seeking only injunctions are exempted. Finally, the Court ruled that roads maintained by a Cantonment Board vest in it under Section 108 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and cannot be restricted by a housing society for exclusive use.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of issuing a notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, applies to outsiders filing a suit against a society or is restricted solely to members involved in internal disputes?
  • Does a suit seeking only an injunction against a Cantonment Board require prior notice under Section 273 of the Cantonments Act, 1924?
  • Can a housing society restrict public access to roads constructed within its scheme if those roads are maintained and managed by the Cantonment Board?
  • Does a dispute regarding the use of a public road between two housing societies constitute an act touching the business of a society under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority Islamabad vs Shafqat Rasool & others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-09-20Read full judgment →
• Deedar Ali Zardari vs Post Master General Northern Sindh Circle, Hyderabad and otherss2016 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 289 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service tribunalseniority listtime-barred appealprovisional senioritydepartmental promotioninitial recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a departmental promotee to the post of Assistant Superintendent Post Offices (BS-14), assailed a provisional seniority list wherein his name was placed at Serial No. 27, claiming entitlement to a higher position over direct appointees. The respondents contended that the private respondents were appointed through initial recruitment in 2003, whereas the appellant was promoted later in 2010. Furthermore, the respondents raised preliminary objections that the departmental representation and the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal were hopelessly time-barred, and that no appeal lies against a provisional seniority list. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the departmental appeal filed by the appellant was barred by time under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, rendering the appeal before the Tribunal incompetent. The Tribunal reaffirmed the settled principle that an appeal before the Tribunal is not maintainable if the underlying departmental appeal/representation is time-barred. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal is maintainable against a provisional seniority list?
  • Does a time-barred departmental representation render an appeal before the Service Tribunal incompetent?
  • How is seniority determined between direct recruits and departmental promotees in the postal department?
  Read full judgment →
• Deedar Ahmed vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 1911 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-02
  unlicensed armsrecovery witnessbenefit of doubtnon-production of case propertyjoint recovery memoacquittal in connected casecontradictory evidenceArms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the alleged recovery of an unlicensed Kalashnikov. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt given the lack of independent public witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, material contradictions between police witnesses, failure to produce case property during trial or under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the acquittal of a co-accused in a connected case based on the same joint recovery memo. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to these cumulative infirmities, non-compliance with mandatory provisions, and major evidentiary gaps. The court laid down that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of an accused entitles him to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, and that police testimony regarding a recovery requires independent corroboration where independent witnesses are available but deliberately not associated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-association of independent public witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 renders a police-witnessed weapon recovery doubtful?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the basis of a joint recovery memo enure to the benefit of the appellant in a separate trial arising from the same incident?
  • Is the failure to produce the case property in court and show it to the accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• DCO/Chairman, District Recruitment Committee, Khanewal and others vs2016 P.S.C. 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Skill Development CouncilNational Training Ordinancevocational trainingultra virespublic appointmentsdiplomas and certificatesregularization of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter arises from judgments of the Lahore, Peshawar, and Balochistan High Courts concerning the validity of appointments made in various government departments on the basis of certificates and diplomas issued by Skill Development Councils in fields such as art, craft, education, and physical education. The core legal question is whether the National Training Board and Skill Development Councils, established under the National Training Ordinance, 1980, possess the legal mandate to offer courses and issue diplomas or certificates in specialized academic and educational fields outside technical and vocational training, and whether appointments based thereon are sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the domain of the Board and the Councils is strictly confined to technical education and vocational training according to market needs, and that issuing diplomas in fields like education, art, and physical education exceeds their statutory authority. However, balancing the equities to prevent unnecessary hardship, the Court ruled that incumbents may retain their appointments if they possess requisite or equivalent qualifications, have subsequently improved their qualifications, or do so within a stipulated one-year period. The key principle laid down is that statutory bodies cannot act beyond their explicitly demarcated domain, but past actions involving accrued rights may be regularized subject to meeting foundational qualification requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Skill Development Council established under the National Training Ordinance, 1980 is competent to award certificates or diplomas in art, craft, education, and physical education?
  • Can appointments made on the basis of diplomas or certificates issued outside the statutory domain of the Skill Development Council be sustained under the law?
  • Do the functions of the National Training Board and the Skill Development Council extend to specialized educational courses beyond technical and vocational training?
  Read full judgment →
• DCO/Chairman District Recruitment Committee, Khanewal and others2016 P.S.C. 1480, 2016 SCMR 1288, 2016 SCP 25, 2016 PLC 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-28
  Skill Development CouncilNational Training Ordinancevocational trainingdiplomas and certificatesultra virespublic appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals arising from the dismissal of Intra Court Appeals and Writ Petitions by various High Courts concerning the validity of appointments made on the basis of certificates and diplomas issued by the Skill Development Council in fields such as art, craft, education, and physical education. The core legal question was whether the Skill Development Council, established under the National Training Ordinance, 1980, is legally competent to offer courses and award diplomas or certificates in specialized academic and educational fields outside technical and vocational training, and whether appointments made on the basis of such unauthorized diplomas are sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the Skill Development Council overstepped its legal domain by issuing diplomas in fields like art, craft, education, and physical education, which fall outside its statutory mandate. However, considering that valuable rights had accrued, the Court ruled that employees possessing alternative requisite or equivalent qualifications, or who subsequently improved their qualifications, may continue in service, while those lacking such qualifications are granted a one-year period to acquire them.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Skill Development Council is competent under the National Training Ordinance, 1980 to award certificates and diplomas in fields such as art, craft, education, and physical education?
  • Can appointments made on the basis of diplomas or certificates issued outside the statutory domain of the Skill Development Council be sustained in law?
  • Whether employees holding unauthorized diplomas from the Skill Development Council can be allowed to retain their government appointments upon possessing or subsequently acquiring requisite qualifications?
  Read full judgment →
• DCO/Chairman District Recruitment Committee, Khanewal and 48 0thers2016 SCP 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-08
  Skill Development CouncilNational Training Boardvocational trainingservice appointmentseducational diplomasultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals challenging judgments of the Lahore High Court, Peshawar High Court, and High Court of Balochistan, which dismissed petitions against government appointments made on the basis of certificates and diplomas issued by the Skill Development Council. The core legal question is whether the National Training Board and the Skill Development Council are legally competent under the National Training Ordinance, 1980, to award certificates, diplomas, or conduct courses in fields such as art, craft, education, and physical education. The Supreme Court held that the domain of the Board and Council is strictly limited to technical education and vocational training based on market needs, and they lack the competence to award diplomas in specialized academic fields like art, craft, education, or physical education. However, balancing equity and administrative continuity, the Court ruled that appointments of individuals relying on such certificates shall be protected if they possess the requisite or equivalent qualifications at present, have subsequently improved their qualifications, or do so within a specified period of one year from the next academic session.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Skill Development Council established under the National Training Ordinance, 1980 is competent to award diplomas and certificates in art, craft, education, or physical education?
  • What are the statutory functions and domain of the National Training Board and the Skill Development Council under the National Training Ordinance, 1980?
  • Can government appointments made on the basis of diplomas or certificates issued outside the statutory domain of the Skill Development Council be protected on equitable grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Dawood Sighar and 5 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2016 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-28
  judicial allowancepension calculationemolumentsHigh Court establishmentindependence of judiciarydelegation of powersconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by retired employees of the High Court of Sindh seeking a declaration that they are entitled to the inclusion of judicial allowance in the calculation of their pension, and seeking implementation of the administrative orders passed by the Chief Justice. The core legal questions involved whether the judicial allowance forms a reckonable component of emoluments for pension purposes under Article 486 of the Civil Service Regulations, and whether the Chief Justice has the competent authority under the relevant rules and the Constitution of Pakistan to mandate such inclusion for the High Court establishment. The Sindh High Court held that the judicial allowance constitutes an integral part of emoluments and is reckonable for pension calculations, and that the administrative orders of the Chief Justice issued pursuant to delegated powers and constitutional authority are binding on the executive authorities. The court laid down the principle that the independence of the judiciary encompasses administrative and financial autonomy regarding the terms and conditions of court establishment staff, and that benefits declared on points of law relating to terms of service should be extended to all similarly placed employees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether judicial allowance is reckonable as part of emoluments for the calculation of pension for retired employees of the High Court establishment?
  • Does the Chief Justice of the High Court have the competent authority to order the inclusion of judicial allowance in pension calculations under the applicable rules and the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are financial authorities such as the Finance Department and Accountant General competent to override or refuse implementation of administrative orders passed by the Chief Justice regarding staff terms and conditions?
  • Should a judgment relating to service terms and conditions be extended to other similarly placed employees who were not formal parties to the litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Director of Intelligence vs Aslam Hashim Butt. & InvestigationPTCL 2016 CL. 535 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-22Read full judgment →
• Dawood Fibre Mills Limited a-57, S.I.T.E Manghopir Road Karachi vs Commissioner (Company Law Division), SecAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Dawood Family Takaful Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Dawood Capital Management Limited Appellant in appeal No. 19 Ms. TaraAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Dawood Capital Management Limited and 2 others vs Executive2016 CLD 1114 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2015-01-22Read full judgment →
• Dawood Baloch vs Moosa Habib2016 SHC 60 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-23Read full judgment →
• Dausa and others vs Province of the Punjab, etc.2016 P.S.C. 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-19
  evacuee propertymortgage redemptionlimitation periodamendment of plaintgovernment resumptiondisplaced personsrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the declaration of title and redemption of land originally mortgaged in 1882 to evacuee mortgagees. The lower courts had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the pleadings contained a self-destructive contradiction regarding the date of the mortgage and that the suit was time-barred, while upholding a 1971 mutation that resumed ownership rights in favor of the government. The core legal questions involved the legality of government resumption of mortgaged land, the computation of limitation for redeeming evacuee mortgages, and the permissibility of amending the plaint to correct historical dates. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, only evacuee mortgagee rights—not ownership rights—could be resumed by the government. Furthermore, relying on established precedent, the Court held that official departmental circulars acknowledging such mortgages effectively extend the limitation period for redemption. The matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication after permitting necessary amendments and evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Central Government can resume ownership rights or only evacuee mortgagee rights under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Does an official memorandum issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner constitute an acknowledgment extending the limitation period for redeeming a mortgage under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can an appellate court allow an amendment to the plaint to correct a factual error regarding the date of a mortgage when the document is an admitted official record?
  • Whether plaintiffs claiming as successors of non-redeeming mortgagors lack locus standi without establishing their status as exclusive heirs of the redeeming mortgagors?
  Read full judgment →
• Dausa and others vs Province of the Punjab and others2016 SCMR 1621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-06-16
  mortgage redemptionevacuee propertylimitation periodamendment of plaintdisplaced persons land settlementmutationdeclaration of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a dispute regarding the declaration of title and redemption of land originally mortgaged in 1882 to evacuee mortgagees. The core legal questions involved the effect of a clerical error in the plaint regarding the date of the mortgage, the validity of a government resumption mutation under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the extension of the limitation period for redemption based on administrative memorandums, and the plaintiffs' locus standi as successors. The Supreme Court held that the impugned mutation resuming proprietary rights instead of merely evacuee mortgagee rights was illegal and void, following the precedent in Samar Gul v. Central Government. Furthermore, the Court allowed the application for amendment of the plaint to correct the historical date of the mortgage based on admitted record and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh adjudication regarding the redeemed portions and proper representation of heirs. The key principle laid down is that the resumption of land under the settlement laws can only extend to evacuee mortgagee rights, leaving ownership rights intact, and that a memorandum by the Chief Settlement Commissioner acts as an acknowledgment renewing the limitation period for redemption under the Limitation Act, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the resumption of mortgaged land by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 can extinguish the ownership rights of the mortgagor or is limited to the evacuee mortgagee rights?
  • Does a memorandum issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner constitute an acknowledgment of a mortgage extending the limitation period for redemption under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can an appellate or apex court permit the amendment of a plaint to correct a clerical error regarding the date of a registered mortgage deed where the document is already an admitted part of the record?
  • Whether plaintiffs claiming through non-redeeming mortgagors or as collaterals possess the necessary locus standi for a declaration of title without impleading all necessary successors and establishing proper shares?
  Read full judgment →
• Dausa & Others vs Province of the Punjab. Etc.-2016 NLR Civil 593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-05-16
  evacuee propertymortgage redemptionamendment of pleadingsresumption of landlimitation periodlocus standiremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit seeking a declaration of title and challenging mutation No. 1999 dated 12.04.1971, under which the Central Government resumed evacuee mortgaged land pursuant to the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Lower courts dismissed the suit as self-destructive and time-barred due to a clerical error in the plaint regarding the mortgage creation date. The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiffs' amendment application under Order V Rule 2(8) of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 to reflect the undisputed registered mortgage deed date (22.12.1882), holding that formal amendments clarifying factual inconsistencies without altering the case's nature may be allowed in the interest of justice. Applying settled law, the Court held that the government could only resume evacuee mortgagee rights, not full ownership; hence, the resumption mutation was illegal and void. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 19 and Article 148 of the Limitation Act 1908, a 1959 departmental memorandum extended the limitation period for redemption by 60 years. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to determine locus standi, succession, and possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can an amendment of a plaint to correct an undisputed formal date be allowed by the Supreme Court to serve the interest of justice?
  • Does the Central Government acquire full ownership title or merely evacuee mortgagee rights when resuming land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  • Does a departmental memorandum acknowledging an evacuee mortgage operate as an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908 to extend the limitation for redemption under Article 148?
  Read full judgment →
• Data Steel Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Large Taxpayer Unit (L.T.U.)2016 PTD 2734 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-07Read full judgment →
• Darvesh Khan vs State through SHO, Police Station Mathra, Peshawar2016 PLJ Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-13Read full judgment →
• Dar-ul-Qaza Mian Gul Rahim vs The State and another2016 MLD 2043 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-26Read full judgment →
• Danish Jahangir vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary_Chairman and 2 others2016 PTD 702 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-10
  Valuation Rulingprovisional releaseCustoms Actimport dutiesbank guaranteecustoms valuationrevision applicationuser ID blocking
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the blocking of its user ID and the application of Valuation Ruling No. 583/2013 to its imported consignments, despite the ruling being set aside by the Customs Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question concerned the validity and application of Valuation Rulings older than 90 days and the right of importers to seek provisional release of goods under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969. The High Court observed that the Customs department frequently failed to update its system or provide reasons for not revising outdated rulings, leading to unnecessary litigation. The Court held that provisional release is a matter of right for the importer, not a discretionary concession. It laid down the principle that where a Valuation Ruling is older than 90 days or is under revision under Section 25-D, the authorities must allow provisional release of consignments under Section 81 upon securing the differential duty via bank guarantee or pay order, ensuring trade is not stifled by administrative delays.

  Read full judgment →
• Dalda Foods (Private) Limited vs Mis Shield Corporation Limited2016 CLD 1864 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-18
  trademark infringementdeceptive similarityclassic trinity testpassing offtrademark dilutionuse it or lose it principlegroundless threatswell-known trademark
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order passed by a learned Single Judge in a trademark infringement suit, wherein the appellant was restrained from using the trademark 'Shield and Device of Shield' on the ground of deceptive similarity with the respondent's trademark 'Health Shield plus Device of Shield'. The core legal question centered on whether the holder of a widely registered trademark across multiple classes can restrain another trader from using a similar mark on completely different goods without commercial use, and whether such use constitutes infringement or dilution. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant was not using the mark as a trademark in the course of trade for identical goods, but merely in an acclamatory manner on distinct products (cooking oil versus toothpaste), and that the classic trinity test for passing off and the requirements for trademark infringement or dilution were not met. The court laid down the principle that trademark registration is not a license to stop other traders indiscriminately, reinforcing the 'use it or lose it' doctrine and the statutory protections against groundless threats of infringement under trademark law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the registration of a trademark across multiple classes of goods allows the owner to restrain third parties from using a similar mark on non-competing goods where no commercial use is established?
  • Does the use of a descriptive sign on product packaging constitute a trademark use capable of causing consumer confusion or deception?
  • What are the essential elements of the Classic Trinity test when determining deceptive similarity and passing off in trademark disputes?
  • When can an aggrieved person bring proceedings against groundless threats of trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001?
  • What threshold of fame and statutory criteria must a trademark satisfy to claim protection against trademark dilution under Pakistani law?
  Read full judgment →
• Dadoo alias Waddan vs The State2016 P Cr. LJ 1130 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-28
  absconsiontrial in absentiaAnti-Terrorism Actfair trialcriminal appealproclaimed offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellant under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for absconsion, despite acquitting him of the primary charges of kidnapping and terrorism. The core legal question was whether a conviction for absconsion under Section 21-L can be sustained when the accused was tried in absentia, no specific charge was framed for that offence, no evidence was recorded to prove the ingredients of the offence, and no finding was made regarding the intentional nature of the absconsion. The Court held that the conviction was illegal and violative of Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court established that a conviction for absconsion requires proof that the accused intentionally avoided arrest or legal proceedings, and that a trial in absentia without due process, specific charges, and evidence is repugnant to the constitutional right to a fair trial and security of person.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without a specific charge being framed for that offence?
  • Is a conviction for absconsion sustainable in the absence of evidence proving that the accused intentionally avoided arrest?
  • Does the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, bar an appeal against a conviction in absentia if the appellant has not first filed an application under Section 19(12) of the Act?
  • Is a trial in absentia for an offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, violative of the constitutional rights to security of person and fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• D.S Industries Limited vs Executive Director (SMD) Securities and ExchangeAppellate Bench of Securities And Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• D.S Industries Limited D.S Textile Limited Ali Pervez Capital (Pvt) Ltd (AllAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• D.J.M Securities (Pvt.) Ltd vs Director (Securities Marketing Division), Securities and Exchange Commission of PakistanAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• D.I. Khan Bench]Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs Govt. of KPK & otherss2016 PLJ Peshawar 223 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-20
  constitutional petitioncivil servantsurplus employeechange of designationback benefitsterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by the petitioner seeking adjustment on the post of Junior Clerk with all back benefits. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk (BPS-5) in 1993, but his designation was later unlawfully changed to Assistant Moulder, and subsequently, upon being declared surplus, he was adjusted as a Naib Qasid (BPS-1). The core legal question revolved around whether a civil servant's terms and conditions of service and designation can be adversely altered and whether a surplus employee can be downgraded. The Peshawar High Court held that changing the petitioner's designation and subsequently downgrading him upon being declared surplus were illegal, discriminatory, and violated his terms and conditions of service. The court laid down the principle that once a civil servant is appointed to a post, their terms and conditions of service cannot be adversely affected, and a surplus employee is entitled to absorption in a post carrying a basic pay scale equal to the one previously held.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant's designation be unilaterally changed to their detriment after initial appointment?
  • Whether a permanent civil servant declared surplus can be adjusted against a lower post in a lower basic pay scale?
  • Does a civil servant enjoy protection regarding their terms and conditions of service upon absorption or when rendered surplus?
  Read full judgment →
• D.G. Khan Cement Co. Ltd. etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2016 LHC 214, 2016 PLJ Lahore 541 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-22Read full judgment →
• D.G Khan Cement Co vs Federation of Pakistan etc2016 LHC 214 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-22Read full judgment →
• Cyan Limited Mr. Abdul Samad Dawood, Director Hercules Corporation LtdAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Crescent Star Insurance Company Limited: In the matter of vs Not2016 CLD 792 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2014-09-04
  insurance regulationpaid-up capitalstatutory non-compliancefiduciary duty of directorsSECP penaltyright shares issuancestatutory deposit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns proceedings initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan against Crescent Star Insurance Company Limited for failing to comply with statutory minimum paid-up share capital requirements prescribed under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The core legal question was whether the Company contravened Sections 11(1) and 28 of the Ordinance by failing to maintain the requisite capital levels as mandated by S.R.O. 291(1)/2007, and if so, the appropriate penalty to be imposed under Section 156. The Commission found that the Company had indeed defaulted on these requirements for several years, despite various extensions and business plans submitted. The Commission held that the directors failed to perform their fiduciary and statutory duties with due care and prudence, knowingly allowing the default to continue. Consequently, the Commission imposed a fine of Rs. 500,000 on the Company, adopting a lenient approach due to the subsequent compliance by the current management and the fact that the initial default originated under the previous Board of Directors. The judgment reaffirms the strict liability of insurers to maintain statutory capital and the accountability of directors for such regulatory non-compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an insurance company to meet minimum paid-up capital requirements constitute a punishable default under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • Are directors of an insurance company personally accountable for statutory defaults concerning capital requirements?
  • Can the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan impose a fine on an insurance company for failing to comply with capital maintenance directions?
  • Is an insurance company required to maintain statutory deposits with the State Bank of Pakistan in accordance with its paid-up capital?
  Read full judgment →
• Credit Insurance Company Limited vs The Director (Insurance Division)Appellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Cooperative Insurance Society of Pakistan Limited vs Executive DirectorAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Continental Insurance Company Limited: In the matter of vs Not2016 CLD 176 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2014-06-30
  companies ordinancedirector disclosurecompany secretaryexecutive director remunerationdefault in compliancepenal actionsecurities and exchange commission of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves proceedings initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan against M/s. Continental Insurance Company Limited and its directors for failing to comply with the disclosure requirements regarding the appointment of a company secretary and the remuneration of an executive director under Section 218(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question was whether the company and its directors committed a default by omitting to attach the requisite abstracts and memoranda of directors' interests to the directors' report, despite intra-family shareholding and subsequent remedial disclosures. The authority held that an established default occurred due to the failure of directors to adhere to statutory fiduciary duties with due care, but opted to take a lenient view and condoned the penalty under Section 218(6) in light of the company's remedial addendum, issuing a stern warning instead. The key principle laid down is that directors are held to a higher standard of accountability regarding statutory compliance, and inadvertent omissions do not negate a technical default though they may mitigate penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to include the terms of appointment of a company secretary and director remuneration in the directors' report constitutes a default under Section 218 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Do directors owe a higher standard of accountability and fiduciary duty regarding statutory compliance under company law?
  • Can a penalty under Section 218(6) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 be condoned or mitigated if the company rectifies the non-compliance by issuing an addendum to the shareholders?
  Read full judgment →
• Constitutional Court of South Africar, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Jaft_fae1e3f62016 SCMR 563 · Constitutional Court of South AfricaRead full judgment →
• Constitutional Court of South Africar, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Jaft_2f1df8d92016 SCMR 709 · Constitutional Court of South AfricaRead full judgment →
• Committee Chowk, Rawalpindi vs Officer Inland Revenue (Audit-I), R.T.O., Rawalpindi2016 PTD (Trib.) 283 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2011-02-08
  amended assessmentaudit selectionprofit and loss expensesshow cause noticebooks of accountslump sum additionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an appeal filed by the taxpayer against the order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) upholding an amended assessment order. The core legal questions involve the validity of the selection of the case for audit under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the legality of making additions out of profit and loss expenses without issuing a show cause notice or pointing out specific defects in the complete books of accounts, and the propriety of the appellate authority remanding the matter back rather than deleting the additions. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue held that additions made without proper confrontation, specific reasons, and without pointing out defects in the books of accounts are unsustainable, and that the appellate commissioner, having found the disallowances improper, should have deleted them instead of remanding the case. The key principle laid down is that lump sum additions out of profit and loss expenses without identifying specific defects in books of accounts or providing proper justification are void, and appellate authorities must delete improper disallowances rather than unnecessarily remand the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amended assessment order passed under section 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is valid when made without pointing out specific defects in the books of accounts?
  • Is a taxation officer authorized to make additions out of profit and loss expenses without issuing a show cause notice under section 122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Whether the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) is justified in remanding a matter back to the taxation officer after concluding that disallowances were not made in a proper and judicious manner?
  • Can lump sum additions out of profit and loss expenses be sustained without considering the verifiability of each expense and supporting vouchers?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs vs Ubs Ag and another2016 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Legal), Peshawar vs Khalid UmarNLR 2016 Tax 72, 2016 PTD 832 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09
  additional evidenceappellate tribunalCommissioner Inland Revenue Appealsincome tax assessmentspeaking ordersufficient causetax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses several tax references arising from orders of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue and the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals). The core legal question revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, specifically whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has the unbridled power to admit additional documentary evidence at the appellate stage that was not produced during the initial assessment proceedings, and whether a speaking order recording reasons and satisfaction regarding 'sufficient cause' is mandatory. The Court held that Section 128(5) imposes an absolute bar on admitting fresh evidence unless the appellate authority is satisfied that the taxpayer was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it earlier, and that this satisfaction must be articulated through a reasoned, speaking order. The High Court established the principle that the admission of additional evidence is not a matter of right for litigants to patch up weak cases, but a strict statutory discretion requiring judicial satisfaction and cogent reasoning to prevent arbitrariness, thereby setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the cases for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is vested with the power to allow additional material or evidence in appeal that was not produced in the original proceedings by the taxpayer?
  • Does Section 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, place a mandatory legal obligation on the Commissioner (Appeals) to record reasons and state satisfaction through a speaking order when admitting additional evidence?
  • Can a taxpayer use the appellate stage to produce new evidence merely because it is vital for the decision of the case, without establishing 'sufficient cause' for earlier non-production?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income/Wealth Tax vs Muhammad Amin2016 PTD 2409 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-10
  income tax referencemistake apparent from recordrectification applicationlimitation periodincome tax appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had declined to refer questions of law to the High Court. The core legal question revolved around whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to refer questions of law and whether a miscellaneous application for rectification under section 156 of the repealed Ordinance could substitute a direct reference against the original appellate order. The Lahore High Court held that when a miscellaneous application for rectification is dismissed, it does not merge into the original order, and the aggrieved party must challenge the original order within the period of limitation. Furthermore, the Court held that an erroneous reliance on a judgment or a debatable point of law does not constitute a 'mistake apparent on the record' rectifiable under section 156. The application was accordingly decided against the applicant department, establishing principles regarding limitation, non-merger of dismissal orders, and the narrow scope of rectification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a reference application under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is maintainable against the dismissal of a rectification application under section 156 when the original appellate order was not challenged in time?
  • Does the dismissal of a miscellaneous application for rectification merge the same into the original appellate order for the purpose of computing limitation?
  • Whether incorrect reliance upon a judgment by the Tribunal constitutes a mistake apparent from the record under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax vs Mst. Hameeda BegumPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Lah.) 48 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Zone, Karachi. vs Dewan KhalidPTCL 2016 CL. 785 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Zone, Karachi vs Dewan Khalid2016 PTCL 785, 2016 PTD 1136 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Peshawar, vs M/s. Islamic Investment BankPTCL 2016 CL. 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  income tax assessmentrepealed statutesaving clauseretrospective operationprocedural lawcharging sectiongeneral clauses actassessment revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether tax authorities can revise or amend assessment orders relating to income years governed by the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, by invoking provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question centered on the retrospective applicability of Section 239(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and whether the substitution of said section through the Finance Act of 2002 enabled the reopening of assessments finalized before its insertion. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 239(1) are procedural in nature and possess retrospective application, preserving the state's right and machinery to compute income and tax liability accrued under the repealed law. The Court ruled that mislabeling a notice under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, instead of Section 66A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, does not vitiate proceedings, as the power to recover tax is protected both by the saving clause and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 239(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 has retrospective application to income years ending on or before June 30, 2002?
  • Can assessment orders finalized under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 be reopened or revised using the mechanisms preserved by saving clauses?
  • Does an incorrect labeling of a statutory notice under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 instead of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 render the notice illegal?
  • Whether the liability to pay income tax accrues on the last day of the accounting year independently of subsequent quantification and assessment procedures?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Peshawar vs M/s. Islamic Investment Bank2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  income tax assessmentrepealed statuteretrospective applicationsaving clausetax liabilitygeneral clauses actnotice validity
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the legality of reopening an income tax assessment finalized under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, by invoking Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether Section 239(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the powers to revise assessments under the repealed law apply retrospectively, and whether a notice erroneously labeled under Section 122(5A) of the 2001 Ordinance could be sustained. The Supreme Court held that procedural provisions preserving powers to revise assessments under the repealed law have retrospective application, and tax liability accrues on the last day of the accounting year, protected independently by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court ruled that issuing a notice under the wrong section label does not invalidate it if the power exists under the correct statutory provision, treating the impugned notice as one issued under Section 66A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and remanding the matter for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 239(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, along with the provisions of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, applies retrospectively to reopen assessments for income years ending on or before June 30, 2002?
  • Does the mere mislabeling of a statutory notice under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, instead of Section 66A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, render the notice invalid?
  • At what point does the substantive liability to pay income tax accrue on a taxpayer?
  • Does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, protect the power of tax authorities to investigate and enforce tax liabilities accrued under a repealed enactment in the absence of a contrary intention?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Peshawar vs M/s Islamic Investment Bank2015-SCP-79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  income taxassessment orderrepealed ordinanceretrospective applicationsaving clausevested righttax liabilityprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax challenges the orders of the lower forums holding that a notice issued under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to revise an assessment for an income year ending before June 30, 2002, was illegal because Section 122(5A) was not retrospective. The core legal question was whether tax authorities could revise assessments for periods governed by the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, using procedures under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, or Section 239(1) thereof. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 239(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and procedural remedial mechanisms are retrospective in nature, preserving the State's vested right to tax accrued under the repealed law. The Court laid down that procedural amendments relating to assessment savings clauses apply retrospectively, and a mislabeling of a notice under Section 122(5A) instead of Section 66A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, does not invalidate the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 239(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 have retrospective application to income years ending on or before June 30, 2002?
  • Can tax authorities revise assessment orders made under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by invoking subsequent procedural amendments?
  • Does the mislabeling of a statutory notice under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 invalidate proceedings if the power is otherwise traceable to the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether the liability to pay income tax arises on the accrual of income under the charging section independent of subsequent computation and assessment procedures?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Peshawar vs Messrs Islamic Investment2016 SCMR 816, 2016 PTD 1339, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1, PTCL 2016 CL. 81, 2015-SCP- · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-16
  income taxassessmentrevision of assessmentretrospective applicationprospective applicationsaving clauserepealed statutevested rightsprocedural lawtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerned the revision of an income tax assessment for an income year ending on 30.06.2001, finalized under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions were whether Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (inserted 01.07.2003), could be applied retrospectively to revise such assessments, and whether the saving clause, Section 239(1) of the 2001 Ordinance (as amended), had retrospective application. The Supreme Court held that Section 239(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, being procedural and a saving clause, has retrospective application. It further ruled that the State's right to claim tax is a vested right accruing on the last day of the income year, protected by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, irrespective of specific saving clauses. Consequently, a notice issued under Section 122(5A) of the 2001 Ordinance for an assessment under the 1979 Ordinance should be treated as a notice under Section 66A of the repealed 1979 Ordinance. The Court set aside the impugned order, reviving the respondent's appeal for a decision on merits, emphasizing that procedural provisions have retrospective application and the State's vested right to tax is protected by general law.

  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Peshawar and others vs Messrs Pakistan2016 SCMR 1238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-20
  income taxpetition for leave to appealstatutory appeallimitationmaintainabilityreference to high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of an appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh passed in an income tax matter. The core legal question addressed was whether a petition for leave to appeal was the correct remedy, or if a direct appeal was required under the relevant statutory framework where the High Court passed an order concerning an income tax reference. The Supreme Court held that since the impugned order of the High Court was passed under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, an appeal under Section 137 of the said Ordinance—and not a petition for leave to appeal—was the maintainable remedy. The Court further observed that because the petition for leave to appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation for such an appeal, it was time-barred even if treated as an appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this preliminary objection regarding maintainability and limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal or a direct appeal is maintainable against a judgment of the High Court delivered under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Does an order passed by the High Court under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 attract the appellate mechanism provided under Section 137 of the said Ordinance regardless of the procedural form adopted?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court income tax judgment time-barred if it exceeds the limitation period prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 137 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Khan vs D.C.O., Mansehra and others2016 MLD 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Legal Division, R.T.O. vs M/s. Matrix PressPTCL 2016 CL. 396 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Legal Division, R.T.O vs Messrs MatrixPTCL 2016 CL. 396, 2016 PTD 97 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-07
  reference applicationIncome Tax Ordinance 2001initial depreciationsalary expensesquestion of factreference jurisdictionAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was filed by the revenue department against an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Karachi, concerning Tax Year 2007. The department challenged the deletion of disallowance regarding salary expenses and the allowance of initial depreciation on fixed assets. The core legal question was whether proposed questions concerning the disallowance of salary expenses and claiming of initial depreciation constituted questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order, or were mere questions of fact. The High Court dismissed the reference application in limine. The Court held that whether salary expenses were justified or whether expenses on completed construction work transferred to fixed assets constituted repair and maintenance under Section 22(15) of the Ordinance were questions of fact. It reaffirmed that concurrent findings of fact recorded by appellate forums cannot be disturbed in reference jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or contrary to the record, and findings of fact do not give rise to a question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by appellate forums give rise to a question of law under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can salary expenses claimed by a taxpayer be disallowed merely because they are higher than those claimed in previous years?
  • Can construction expenses incurred in a previous year and completed in the tax year be treated as repair and maintenance under Section 22(15) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Messrs Caf Student Karachi and others2016 PTD 1072 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Khushnood AhmedPTCL 2016 CL. 745 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Fresh Juices Ltd.2016 PTD 1093 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Legal Division, Lahore and others vs Khurshid2016 P.S.C. 1288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  minimum taxpresumptive tax regimeturnoversupply of goodsservices renderedexecution of contractstax deduction at sourcefiscal statute interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated batch of appeals and petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan primarily concerns the interpretation of minimum tax provisions under Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, alongside related questions concerning the Presumptive Tax Regime, services rendered, and the definition of "supply of goods". The core legal questions addressed whether minimum tax is leviable on the aggregate turnover including receipts subject to presumptive tax, whether services rendered pursuant to a contract fall under presumptive tax, and whether on-the-spot cash purchases constitute "supply of goods". The Supreme Court held that minimum tax under the respective sections is leviable on the aggregate turnover from all sources including presumptive tax receipts, as the legislature had not explicitly excluded them in the unamended provisions. The Court further held that services rendered are expressly excluded from the presumptive tax regime under Section 80C, and that on-the-spot cash purchases or retail sales to walk-in customers do not fall within the technical meaning of "supply of goods" under Section 50(4)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the minimum tax payable under Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is leviable on the aggregate of declared turnover from all sources including receipts covered by Sections 80C and 80CC?
  • Whether the minimum tax payable under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as it existed prior to its omission by the Finance Act, 2008, is leviable on the aggregate turnover from all sources including receipts covered by the Presumptive Tax Regime?
  • Whether 'services rendered' pursuant to the execution of a contract fall within the Presumptive Tax Regime by virtue of Section 80C(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether cash purchase and/or purchase of raw material falls within the purview of 'supply of goods' as envisaged by Section 50(4)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Legal Division Lahore. vs Khurshid Ahmad,_20afd13cPTCL 2016 CL. 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-05
  minimum taxpresumptive tax regimeturnoversupply of goodsfiscal statute interpretationtax liabilityservices rendered
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals and petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the scope of minimum tax liability under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal questions concerned whether minimum tax under Section 80D (1979 Ordinance) and Section 113 (2001 Ordinance) applies to aggregate turnover including receipts under the Presumptive Tax Regime (PTR); whether 'services rendered' under a contract falls within the PTR; and whether on-the-spot cash purchases constitute 'supply of goods'. The Court held that minimum tax is leviable on the aggregate turnover, including PTR receipts, as the statutory definitions of 'turnover' are comprehensive and do not provide for such exclusions. Regarding 'services rendered', the Court ruled it is excluded from the PTR under Section 80C(2)(a)(i) of the 1979 Ordinance. Finally, the Court held that on-the-spot cash purchases do not qualify as 'supply of goods' under Section 50(4)(a) of the 1979 Ordinance. The principle laid down is that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their express wording, without implying exclusions not explicitly provided by the legislature.

  Questions settled

  • Is minimum tax under Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 leviable on the aggregate of declared turnover including receipts covered by the Presumptive Tax Regime?
  • Does the definition of 'turnover' in Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 include receipts subject to the Presumptive Tax Regime?
  • Do 'services rendered' pursuant to the execution of a contract fall within the Presumptive Tax Regime under Section 80C(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the term 'supply of goods' under Section 50(4)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 encompass on-the-spot cash purchases?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Legal Division Lahore vs Khul hid Ahmad2016 P.S.C. 1069, 2016 PLD Supreme Court 545, 2016 P.S.C. 1288, PTCL 2016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-05
  minimum taxpresumptive tax regimeturnoversupply of goodsservices renderedstatutory interpretationfiscal statutestaxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves multiple appeals concerning the interpretation of turnover and the scope of the Presumptive Tax Regime under the Income Tax Ordinances of 1979 and 2001. The core legal questions were whether minimum tax is leviable on aggregate turnover including receipts under the Presumptive Tax Regime, and whether 'services rendered' or 'on-the-spot cash purchases' fall within specific tax categories. The Court held that for the relevant tax years, the definition of 'turnover' in Section 80D of the 1979 Ordinance and Section 113 of the 2001 Ordinance was exhaustive and inclusive of all gross receipts from sales, services, and contracts, regardless of whether they were subject to presumptive tax. The Court further ruled that 'services rendered' are distinct from the residual category of 'execution of contracts' and thus excluded from the Presumptive Tax Regime under Section 80C. Finally, it held that 'supply of goods' does not encompass on-the-spot cash purchases or window sales to walk-in customers. The principle established is that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly based on express language, and courts cannot imply exclusions or extensions not explicitly provided by the legislature.

  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Companies Zone, Islamabad/Wealth Tax2016 PTD 2419 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-31Read full judgment →
• (1) Commissioner of Income Tax (2) Commissioner Inland Revenue vs2016 SCP 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-25
  tax holidaycarry forward of lossesunabsorbed depreciationindustrial undertakingincome tax exemptionbusiness lossesassessment year
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals regarding whether business losses and unabsorbed depreciation allowances incurred by industrial undertakings during a tax holiday period under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 could be carried forward and set off against income earned in assessment years beyond the tax holiday. The core legal questions centered on the interpretation of statutory provisions governing the carry forward of business losses and depreciation during tax exemptions. The Supreme Court held that while the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 does not preclude the carrying forward and setting off of business losses incurred during a tax holiday period under Section 35, unabsorbed depreciation allowances cannot be carried forward to post-tax holiday periods due to the specific exception provided under Rule 3A of the Third Schedule of the Ordinance. The key legal principle laid down is that tax exemptions do not extinguish the statutory right to carry forward business losses unless expressly excluded by law, whereas unabsorbed depreciation is explicitly deemed to have been allowed during a tax holiday period under the applicable rules, barring its carry forward.

  Questions settled

  • Can business losses incurred during a tax holiday period under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 be carried forward and set off against income earned in assessment years beyond the tax holiday period?
  • Whether unabsorbed depreciation allowance can be carried forward to assessment years beyond the tax holiday period under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • What are the statutory conditions required for carrying forward business losses under Section 35 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland vs M/s. Amtex Ltd. Revenue.PTCL 2016 CL. 472 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue: Zone-VIII, R.T.O.-II, Lahore vs Messrs2016 PTD (Trib.) 2039 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-04-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue. vs Rana Riasat Tufail and others.PTCL 2016 CL. 45 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-VIII R.T.O. II,Lahore vs Messrs Happy2016 PTD (Trib.) 2039, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 939 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-04-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II,Rto-II. vs M_s. G.M. Fishers (Pvt.) Ltd., KarachiPTCL 2016 CL. 370 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Rto-II vs Messrs G.M. FishersPTCL 2016 CL. 370, 2016 PTD 185 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Rto vs Messrs Talha Textile2016 PTD (Trib.) 1908 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-05-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Rto, Karachi vs Messrs Abs2016 PTD (Trib.) 2610 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-05-12
  penaltywithholding statementincome taxrevenue losstax defaultappellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax appeal arises from an order passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 182(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for non-filing of a statement under section 165. The core legal question is whether a taxpayer who is not collecting or deducting tax, and is not a prescribed person, is required to file a withholding statement under section 165 and thereby subject to penalties under section 182 for failure to do so. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue held that the taxpayer was not required to file the statement under section 165 as it did not fall within the category of persons collecting or deducting tax, and that penal provisions cannot be invoked mechanically without a resulting revenue loss or proper appreciation of statutory intent. The Tribunal laid down the principle that section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is not a charging provision or a revenue-generating source, but a compliance mechanism, and taxation authorities must act judiciously and fairly when imposing penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a taxpayer who is not collecting or deducting tax is required to file a monthly statement under section 165 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a penalty under section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 be imposed universally without establishing a default or a loss of revenue to the national exchequer?
  • Is section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 a charging provision intended for resource mobilization or revenue generation?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, L.T.U.Lahore vs Messrs Becton2016 PTD (Trib.) 2052 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-04-05
  condonation of delaysales tax appeallimitation periodadjustment of sales taxincome tax refundAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This sales tax appeal was preferred by the Revenue against an impugned appellate order, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question concerned whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay in filing the second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, and whether the department was entitled to adjustment of sales tax liability against income tax refund. The Tribunal held that the application for condonation of delay was incompetent both for lack of a supporting affidavit as required by Rule 13 of the ATIR Rules, 2010, and because the appeal remained time-barred even after excluding the period of the alleged departmental strike. On merits, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, finding no infirmity as the registered person had timely requested the adjustment and the delay was attributable to the department. The key principle laid down is that an application for condonation of delay must be duly supported by an affidavit as per procedural rules, and departmental strikes do not automatically save an appeal from limitation if it remains filed beyond the extended deadline.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for condonation of delay requires a supporting affidavit under the ATIR Rules, 2010?
  • Does a strike by departmental employees automatically excuse a delay in filing a statutory appeal beyond the limitation period?
  • Is a registered person entitled to adjustment of sales tax liability against an income tax refund when the delay is caused by the department?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Special Zone, Rto, Multan vs M/s. Arain2016 LHC 2123, PLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Lah.) 75 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, R.T.O., Gujranwala vs Messrs Karwan-E-2016 PTD (Trib.) 2122 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Muzaffarabad vs Muhammad Abbas Qadri, Prop. Qadri Traders,Muzaffarabad2016 P.C.T.L.R. 865 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Muzaffarabad vs Muhammad Abbas2016 PTD 2874 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-06-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Muzaffarabad and others vs Muhammad2016 P.C.T.L.R. 865, 2016 PTD 2874, 2016 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 234 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-06-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Multan vs Messrs Bank Al-Habib Ltd2016 PTD 2548 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-19
  reference applicationmaintainabilityAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenuepiecemeal orderfinal disposal of appealincome tax referencebad debts disallowance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a series of reference applications filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue against an order passed by a Full Bench of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which decided only a single legal question regarding the disallowance of bad debts while leaving the main appeals pending before respective Benches. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a reference application under section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is maintainable against a piecemeal or interim order of the Tribunal before the final disposal of the appeal under section 132. The Lahore High Court held that reference applications are not maintainable against interim or piecemeal opinions of the Tribunal where the main appeals have not been finally disposed of under section 132. The court laid down the principle that the advisory reference jurisdiction under section 133 is strictly restricted to final orders passed under section 132, which culminate in the affirmation, modification, annulment, or remand of assessment orders, and parties must wait for the final disposal of the appeals before invoking the reference jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a reference application under section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is maintainable against a piecemeal order or opinion of the Appellate Tribunal when the main appeal is still pending?
  • Can a reference be filed before the High Court under section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 prior to the final disposal of an appeal under section 132?
  • Does the reference jurisdiction of the High Court under section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 extend to interim findings or opinions rendered by a Full Bench of the Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs Saritow Spinning Mills Ltd., Lahore2016 P.C.T.L.R. 83, 2016 PTD 786 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-21
  additional taxsales taxincome tax deductionfine or penaltydefault surchargeadmissible deductionstatutory interpretationreference application
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 addresses whether additional tax paid under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for late payment of sales tax constitutes a fine or penalty and is thus disallowed as a deduction under section 21(g) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Lahore High Court examined the distinct statutory schemes of sections 33 and 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, noting that additional tax is compensatory and meant to retrieve revenue losses from delayed payments, whereas fines or penalties are penal in nature and require mens rea. The Court held that additional tax is not a fine or penalty within the meaning of section 21(g) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and is therefore an admissible business deduction. The key principle laid down is that additional tax for late payment of sales tax is distinct from a penalty or fine and does not attract statutory disallowance under section 21(g) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

  Questions settled

  • Whether additional tax paid under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for late payment of sales tax is in the nature of a fine or penalty?
  • Is additional tax for late payment of sales tax hit by the statutory disallowance under section 21(g) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can additional tax paid under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 be claimed as an admissible deduction in computing income under the head Income from Business?
  • What is the distinction between additional tax under section 34 and penalties under section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Tariq Poly Pack (Pvt.) LtdPTCL 2016 CL. 449 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Sher Akbar Khan2016 PTD 325 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Haral Textile Mills LimitedPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Lah.) 69 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 2012-05-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Arain Fibers Ltd2016 LHC 2123 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Muhammad Ali2016 PTD 377 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-14
  tax refundassessment ordertaxation officer jurisdictionfinal tax regimeincome tax ordinancewithholding taxtax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves multiple tax reference applications filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding tax refund claims. The core legal questions concerned whether the Taxation Officer had jurisdiction under Section 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to challenge the nature of an assessment or the correctness of a return while processing a refund application, and whether such an officer could effectively ignore the status of a return that had already attained the character of an assessment order under Section 120. The High Court held that the Taxation Officer, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 170, lacks the authority to go behind an assessment order to question the correctness of the return. The Court clarified that if the Revenue intends to challenge the nature of the assessment, it must invoke the specific powers under Section 122 of the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court ruled against the department, affirming that Section 170 is limited to verifying the refund claim based on the existing assessment order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Taxation Officer have the jurisdiction under Section 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to question the correctness of a return that has already attained the status of an assessment order?
  • Can a Commissioner or Taxation Officer go behind an assessment order while exercising powers under Section 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • What is the proper legal mechanism for the Commissioner to challenge the nature of an assessment if the return has already attained the status of an assessment order under Section 120?
  Read full judgment →