Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---- ----Art. 199---Maintainability of constitutional petition---Impugned tax notice issued without jurisdiction---Scope of judicial review---Petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, challenged a notice issued under Rule 9 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, alleging illegal shifting of goods to unregistered warehouses as taxable sales---Held, that Rule 9 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 pertains only to the registration process and does not authorize taxation of movement of goods between warehouses---No statutory provision was cited to support the assertion that mere shifting of goods constitutes a taxable event---Impugned notice was based on assumptions and lacked lawful authority---A writ petition is maintainable where a public authority acts beyond jurisdiction or issues a mala fide order, as reaffirmed in precedent case law. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---- ----Ss. 2(33), 2(35) & 3---Concept of sale, supply, and taxable activity---Tax liability on mere transfer of goods between warehouses---Scope---Respondent department alleged that shifting of finished goods from factory to unregistered warehouses constituted a sale and was subject to sales tax---Held, that the statutory definition of sale and supply under Ss. 2(33) & 2(35) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, requires a transfer of goods involving consideration, which was absent in the present case---Mere movement of goods between locations owned by the same entity does not constitute a taxable supply unless expressly covered by statutory provisions---Impugned notice was vague and did not establish any taxable event. (c) Sales Tax Rules, 2006---- ----Rule 9---Scope and application---Whether tax authorities can invoke Rule 9 to impose sales tax on internal movement of goods---Held, that Rule 9 merely provides a mechanism for filing applications regarding registration or change in registration particulars and does not impose any sales tax liability on the movement of goods between warehouses---Application of Rule 9 in the impugned notice was unwarranted and without legal basis. (d) Judicial Review of Taxation Measures---- ----Mala fide exercise of power by tax authorities---Fraud on statute---Scope of judicial interference---Petitioners contended that the impugned notice was issued without lawful authority and was mala fide---Held, that a mala fide action is inherently without jurisdiction and amounts to a fraud on the statute, as reaffirmed in Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Hamid Khan (PLD 1965 SC 671) and Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (PLD 1990 SC 399)---Where an action by a tax authority is ultra vires, suffers from jurisdictional defects, or is based on assumptions rather than legal provisions, judicial intervention under Art. 199 of the Constitution is warranted---Impugned notice set aside as being without lawful authority. ----Cited Cases: Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Hamid Khan (PLD 1965 SC 671) Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (PLD 1990 SC 399) Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan (1993 SCMR 1798) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. (2009 PTD 1392) Pak Telecom Mobile Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2017 PTD 2296) Telenor Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (ICA No. 301/2019, decided on 13.10.2022) Federal Board of Revenue v. Abdul Ghani (2021 SCMR 1154) ----Disposition: Petition allowed. Impugned tax notice dated 20.04.2016 declared ultra vires and set aside. Tax authorities barred from treating mere internal movement of goods as a taxable event unless explicitly covered under the law.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302(b), 324—Qatl-i-amd—Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd—Conviction and sentence—Challenge—Evidence—Ocular account, medical evidence, recovery of weapon, and motive—Consistency and credibility of witnesses—Role of complainant—Delay in lodging FIR—Effect—Sudden provocation plea—Rejection. Appellant was convicted under Ss. 302(b) and 324, P.P.C. for the murder of his wife and causing firearm injuries to his father-in-law. The prosecution’s case rested on the ocular account of the complainant (PW-2), who was also an injured witness, corroborated by another eyewitness (PW-3). The witnesses remained firm in cross-examination, providing a consistent and confidence-inspiring narration of the incident, including the time, place, and manner of occurrence. Medical evidence corroborated the nature and location of injuries. Recovery of the weapon of offence (pistol 30-bore) was supported by a positive forensic report. The plea that the delay in lodging the FIR indicated fabrication was rejected, as the injured complainant first prioritized seeking medical attention for himself and the deceased. The accused’s contention that the killing was not premeditated and occurred in a sudden fight or in the heat of passion was also dismissed, as the accused entered the complainant’s house armed with a firearm, raised a lalkara, and fired at the deceased without any provocation. The repetition of fire on the complainant further demonstrated clear intent. The court held that the case did not fall under the exception to murder under S. 302(c), P.P.C. but rather under intentional murder under S. 302(b), P.P.C. Held, prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a shadow of doubt, and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court were upheld. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Ss. 173, 342—Investigative procedure—Role of Investigating Officer—Delay in sending forensic evidence—Effect. The accused was arrested, and the weapon of offence was recovered and sent for forensic examination after a delay of 27 days. The defence contended that the delay rendered the forensic report unreliable. However, the court ruled that the delay was attributable to the Investigating Officer’s negligence and did not undermine the otherwise solid prosecution case. The court reiterated that when the ocular account is trustworthy, minor lapses in investigation do not provide grounds for acquittal or sentence reduction. (c) Administration of Justice ---- Principles of sentencing—Mitigation and deterrence—Death penalty—Confirmation. The court underscored that the normal punishment for intentional murder is the death penalty, as prescribed by law and divine injunctions. The appellant had committed a brutal act of domestic violence, murdering his own wife and injuring her father over a trivial family dispute. The case lacked any extenuating circumstances to warrant a lesser punishment. The court cited case law emphasizing that in heinous offences, judicial leniency is unwarranted and that severe punishment serves as a deterrent. Held, appeal dismissed, and death sentence confirmed. Cited Cases: Sheraz Asghar v. The State (1995 SCMR 1365) Zar Bahadar v. The State (1978 SCMR 136) Ali Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 274) Muhammad Asif v. Muhammad Akhtar (2016 SCMR 2035) Javed Akhtar v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 419) Nasir Ahmed v. The State (2023 SCMR 478) Muhammad Sharif v. The State (1991 SCMR 1622) Noor Muhammad v. The State (1999 SCMR 2722)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan — Arts. 191A(4), 184(3) & 189 — Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — Challenge to vires of sub-section (2) of Section 221-A of the Customs Act, 1969 — Competence of the Regular Bench to hear the matter Held, that under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution, Committees constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, are the legal and constitutional fora to determine bench composition. The Regular Bench had assumed jurisdiction over the CPLAs without lawful authority. Orders dated 13.01.2025 and 16.01.2025 passed in these cases were declared void ab initio and recalled accordingly. (b) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 — S. 2(1) — Judicial functions of Committees in Bench assignment Held, that powers exercised by the Committees under the Act do not encroach upon judicial functions. Their role is limited to determining which Bench hears specific matters. Any order passed in violation of this framework is void. (c) Contempt Proceedings Against Additional Registrar — Criminal Original Petition No.1/2025 — Notice issued to Additional Registrar (Judicial) regarding contempt proceedings — Subsequently challenged in Criminal Intra Court Appeal No.1/2025 Held, that notice was withdrawn vide order dated 27.01.2025. Appeal disposed of by Larger Bench with a 4-2 majority. (d) Leave to Appeal & Notices to Attorney General — Leave to appeal granted — Notices issued to respondents — Attorney General for Pakistan directed to appear under Order XXVI-A, CPC — Appeals arising from the instant CPLAs to be placed before the Constitutional Bench for adjudication Disposition: Orders dated 13.01.2025 and 16.01.2025 declared void — Leave to appeal granted — Matter fixed before the Constitutional Bench.

Summary: (a) Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 ----S. 70(13)----Appeal to High Court----Scope and limitations----Appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 70(13) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, is akin to a second appeal under S. 100 CPC and is limited to questions of law----Reappraisal of evidence by the High Court is not warranted unless a decision is contrary to law, fails to determine a material issue, or suffers from a substantial procedural error leading to an erroneous conclusion. Cited Case: • Sohail and Company v. Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad (2024 PTD 872) (b) Anti-Dumping Duties----Nature of anti-dumping duty----Purpose and legal framework ----Anti-dumping duty is not a tax but a trade remedial measure aimed at offsetting injurious effects of dumped imports and protecting the domestic industry----Under S. 3 of the 2015 Act, such duties are imposed only after a determination that (i) dumping is taking place, and (ii) it is causing material injury to domestic industry----Domestic industry is defined under S. 2(d) to include domestic producers of the like product, excluding those related to exporters or importers of the allegedly dumped product. (c) Dumping Determination----Causal relationship requirement----Scope ----S. 18 of the 2015 Act mandates that injury to domestic industry must be attributed only to dumped imports, and other possible causes must be excluded----Commission’s determination must be based on an examination of all relevant evidence, including factors like contraction in demand, trade restrictions, technological developments, and industry productivity----Commission found that increased imports of Duplex Board at dumped prices led to price depression, reduced market share, and profitability loss for domestic producers. Cited International Case: • European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina (WT/DS 473/R) (d) Judicial Review of Anti-Dumping Determinations----High Court’s power to interfere----Scope ----Findings of the Commission and Appellate Tribunal on anti-dumping determinations will not be disturbed unless they violate the 2015 Act or fundamental principles of justice----Commission found that M/s Century Paper, the domestic complainant, met the statutory definition of "domestic industry" despite being related to an importer (Merit Packaging), as the relationship did not affect competitive behavior----High Court declined to interfere, holding that no legal infirmity was present in the Appellate Tribunal’s decision. (e) Procedural Compliance----Timelines under Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015----Scope ----S. 39 requires final determination within 180 days of the preliminary determination----Commission issued its final determination within the prescribed timeframe----S. 29 requires the entire investigation to conclude within 12-18 months; Commission’s investigation was completed within this period despite extensive litigation. Disposition: Appeal dismissed. High Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the National Tariff Commission and the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal. No costs awarded.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 749ICA (Writ)- ICA Sales Tax 92-20 ATTOCK REFINERY LTD VS F.O.P ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 27- 01- 2025 2025 LHC 136 2025 PTD 789 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXVII Rr.1, 2 & S. 115---Recovery suit on the basis of cheque--- Ex parte proceedings in summary suit---Production of evidence in proof of claim, requirement of---Scope---Principle of natural justice and procedured fairness---Contention of the petitioner/plaintiff was that since an ex parte order had been passed against the defendants/respondents, thus, instead of passing an order for production of evidence of the plaintiff, Trial Courts hould have decreed the suit---Validity---In summary suits under O. XXXVII, C.P.C., where defendants are proceeded against ex parte, the plaintiff is still required to lead evidence to prove his claim---Ex parte decree in a summary suit under O. XXXVII, C.P.C. is not automatic---Plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to allow the court to scrutinize the genuineness of the claim for ensuring that the judgment is based on solid proof---Necessity of recording plaintiff's evidence, even in ex parte summary suit proceedings, stems from principles of natural justice and fairness in procedure---Civil revision was dismissed in limine in circumstance. Furqan Ahmad for Petitioner.

Summary: (a) Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979)--- ----S.3---Qazf---Proof---Denial of paternity of child constitutes offence of Qazf as it amounts to attribution of Zina to child's mother. Bada'i al-Sana'i fi Tartib al-Shara't (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah, 2003), vol. 5, p. 34 and Al-Hidayah fi Sharh Bidayat al-Mubtadi (Beirut: Dar Ihya' al-Turath al-'Arabi, n.d.), vol. 2, p. 270 rel. (b) Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979)--- ----S. 14---Li'an---Applicability---Provision of Li'anis applicable when the allegation is made at a time when marital bond between the couple is intact. Al-Mabsut (Beirut: Dar al-Ma'rifah, n.d.), vol. 7, p. 49 rel. (c) Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979)--- ----Ss. 5 & 11---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 128---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 203F---Review of judgment---Qazf, offence of---Withdrawal of complaint---Effect---Legitimacy of child---Respondent/ex-husband was tried for committing Qazf on petitioner/ex-wife---Trial Court instead of deciding the matter of Qazf, left the same to be placed before Almighty Allah on the Day of Judgment---Federal Shariat Court partly allowed appeal filed by petitioner/ex-wife and declared that allegation of Qazf was established against respondent/ex-husband---Federal Shariat Court did not impose punishment of Hadd as Tazkiyat-al-Shuhudwas not done for the witnesses, resultantly punishment was awarded as Ta'zir---Respondent/ex-husband was acquitted by Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court---Petitioner/ex-wife sought review of the judgment passed by Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court---Held, that for enforcing Hadd of Qazf, it is necessary that complainant must not withdraw the complaint---Even silence on the part of complainant amounts to Shubhah (doubt) which becomes an obstacle in the way of enforcing Hadd punishment---Petitioner/ex-wife did not press for punishing respondent/ex-husband, therefore, Hadd could not be enforced---Respondent/ex-husband had already been released after the judgment was announced by Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court---Legitimacy of the child born to petitioner/ex-wife was conclusively established and she was entitled to all legal rights of a legitimate child under Islamic law and law of the land---Child born during subsistence of a valid marriage or within two years after its dissolution, under Article 128 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 is conclusive proof of legitimacy, provided that the woman remains unmarried after divorce---Act of respondent/ex-husband attracted rules of Qazf, not Li'an---Proceedings for Qazf could not be allowed to continue after the petitioner/ex-wife withdrew from the allegation---Judgment passed by Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court was sustained to the extent of acquittal of respondent/ex-husband---Shariat review petition was allowed accordingly. Al-Mabsut (Beirut: Dar al-Ma'rifah, n.d.), vol. 7, p. 49 and Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Mehr Ghulam Dastagir Khan and another PLD 2015 SC 327 rel. Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki, Advocate Supreme Court and Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ms. Chand Bibi, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State. Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, ASC/AOR for Respondent No. 2. Dr. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad, Ex-Director-General, Shariah Academy as Amicus Curiae. Date of hearing: 8th August, 2024.