Summary: Though examination of accused under Section: 342 Cr.P.C. is the process between Court and the accused yet it is trite law that act of the Court should prejudice no one; therefore, if during this process, prosecution draws attention of the Court towards some incriminating material which has not been put to the accused, Court will examine the same and if considers it necessary, put to the accused through question. 161STR (Sales Tax Reference) 9011/21 Quaid-e- Azam Thermal Power Private Limited . Vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue etc. Mr. Justice Khalid Ishaq 04-11- 2025 2025 LHC 7211

Summary: Conduct of audit and assessment of tax return, on the basis of audit report, are two different streams of proceedings and mere plea of delay in conclusion of audit proceedings, on account of failure to raise objections to notice under Section 177(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, cannot defeat the assessment proceeding under Section 122 of the Ordinance, 2001. 160Crl. Appeal 55608/23 Shafqat Iqbal alias Bilalu Vs The State etc. Mr. Justice Farooq Haider 05-11- 2025 2025 LHC 6507

Summary: Railway Police established and governed by the Pakistan Railways Police Act 1977 fall within the purview of Police Authorities in terms of Section 22-A(6) of the Code and Ex-Officio Justice of Peace can issue direction against delinquent Railway Police Official/Member for offence under Articles 155(1)(c) and 156(d) of the Police Order 2002 as well as offence(s) under Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act 2022; Settled principle of interpretation of statute that where the intention of the legislature and the object for which the law has been enacted are clear, Courts are not allowed to interpret the law in a manner which could impede or defeat the object for which such law has been enacted. Equally trite that the internal aid interpreting any statute or its provision can be derived primarily from the statute itself including its preamble, illustrations, headings, marginal notes, punctuation, transitory provisions, etc. 159Writ Petition- Tax and duties- Income Tax 5000-22 M/S FAZAL PAPER MILLS LTD VS FOP ETC Mr. Justice Asim Hafeez 05-11- 2025 2025 LHC 6537

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 25A & 25D---Revision of value determined sought---Subsequent Value Ruling, issuance of---Applicability---Importer not being part of revision proceedings---Petitioner/ Importer sought re-assessment of the into-bonded consignments of the petitioner and subsequent release of the same---Consignment of the petitioner was assessed vide Assessment Order dated 16.05.2025 under Valuation Ruling No. 1948/2025 dated 06.01.2025 while the noted Valuation Ruling (1948/2025), being the subject matter of Revision Petitions' preferred by various importers, excluding the petitioner, under S. 25D of the Customs Act 1969 (‘ the Act 1969’) before the Directorate of Customs Valuation subsequently came before the Customs Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) and ultimately, a fresh Valuation Ruling No.2008/2005 dated 14.07.2025 was issued, categorically revising the earlier / noted Valuation Ruling (1948/2025)---Argument of the department / respondent was that the applicability of the Valuation Rulings was only to the Importers seeking revision---Validity---In the present case, the goods were still lying in the bonded warehouse---The Valuation Rulings were statutory rulings and have the force of law, as once the Director General (Valuation) issues a ruling the same has to be duly notified, under the Customs General Orders, 2002---Thus, the arguments of the Respondent were misconceived in respect of the applicability of the Valuation Rulings only to the Importers seeking revision---Notified ruling under S. 25-A of the Act 1969 is applicable and binding until revised or rescinded by the competent authority---Once revised, the ruling takes effect from the date when the original/earlier ruling was given, otherwise the same will result in applying a ruling to the importer which is no longer in the field or which the department itself found to be erroneous---Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the revised ruling---Even otherwise, the benefit of any ambiguity or error, relating to the status or the interpretation of a ruling must go to the importer/taxpayer---High Court directed the respondents /Department to re-assess the consignments of the petitioner under Valuation Ruling No. 2008/2025 and release the same in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. The D.G Customs Valuation, Karachi and another v. M/s A.A. Tyre, Karachi, Special Customs Reference Application No. 1926/2023; Collector of Customs v. Wasim Radio 2023 SCMR 1716; Messrs Saghir Co. through Proprietor v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary 2013 PTD 636 and Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs v. Messers Khas Trading Co 2015 PTD 22 ref. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 25D & 109---Revision of value determined sought---Subsequent Value Ruling, issuance of---Applicability---Importer not being part of revision proceedings---Petitioner / importer sought re-assessment of the into-bonded consignments of the Petitioner and subsequent release of the same---Consignment of the petitioner was assessed vide Assessment Order dated 16.05.2025 under Valuation Ruling No. 1948/2025 dated 06.01.2025 while the noted Valuation Ruling (1948/2025) being the subject matter of Revision Petitions preferred by various importers, excluding the petitioner, under S. 25D of the Customs Act, 1969, before the Directorate of Customs Valuation subsequently came before the Customs Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), and ultimately, a fresh Valuation Ruling No.2008/2005 dated 14.07.2025 was issued, categorically revising the earlier / noted Valuation Ruling (1948/2025)---Argument of the Department / respondent was that the applicability of the Valuation Rulings was only to the importers seeking revision---Validity---Under S. 109 of the Customs Act , 1969 the Petitioner was entitled to re-assessment of his consignments on the basis of fresh Valuation Ruling as it was only the subsequent Valuation Ruling i.e. 2008/2025 which remained in the field---High Court directed the respondents / Department to re-assess the consignments of the petitioner under Valuation Ruling No. 2008/2025 and release the same in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Global Produce Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and 2 others 1986 CLC 137 ref. Muhammad Adeel Awan for Petitioner. Ms. Mehreen Ibrahim, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent No.1. Sardar Zafar Hussain and Aamir Ali Sheikh for Respondents Nos.2 and 3. Tariq Aziz, Assistant Collector. Date of hearing: 27th October, 2025.

Summary: (1) True Import of Clauses (a), (h) & (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8, read with Sections 2(14) & 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Admissibility of Input Tax paid to the Punjab Revenue Authority (PRA) against Services in terms of Section 2(38) read with Entry Nos. 14 & 16 of the Second Schedule of the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012; (2) Interpretation of a Document for Taxation Purpose is the Ascertainment of the Meaning, which the Document would Convey to a Reasonable Person having all the Background Knowledge, which would have been reasonably available to the Parties in the Situation in which they were at the Time of the Contract; (3) A Document has to be read as a whole and not by Picking and Choosing a Particular Paragraph or Portion thereof.

Summary: Petitioner seeks protective bail by invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Once a competent court has rendered a judgment of conviction or acquittal, the individual’s status changes from an accused to a convict or acquitted person, and their custody or liberty stems from a judicial order. Thereafter, the only competent remedy lies before the appellate or revisional forum within the proper territorial jurisdiction. A High Court of another Province has no authority under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere with or suspend a conviction passed by a coordinate or subordinate court elsewhere. Protective bail, being a pre-arrest safeguard, cannot extend to post-conviction situations, as execution of a judicial sentence flows from lawful authority, not administrative discretion. Only in exceptional circumstances—such as conviction in absentia or while on exemption from appearance—Constitutional Law court of competent jurisdiction may grant / defer arrest briefly to enable the convict to approach and surrender before the appropriate appellate forum, in line with his fundamental right of access to justice. (PLD 2012 SC 923). In this case, the petitioner, convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, vide judgment dated 31.07.2025, and being a resident of Faisalabad, has no justification to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction at this belated stage.

Summary: i. While the non-production of the second eyewitness may at first appear to weaken the prosecution case, the fact that PW-3 was completely independent and not under the influence or control of the complainant, minimizes the impact of this omission. His presence at the scene stands naturally explained, and his version remains consistent throughout. ii. Their testimonies harmonize on material particulars such as the occurrence, the movement of the injured, the manner in which information was conveyed, and the subsequent reporting of the matter. In such a situation, the relationship of the complainant with the deceased does not, by itself furnish a reason to discard his testimony especially when it stands reinforced by an independent eyewitness whose presence and narrative bear the hallmark of truth. iii. While only one eyewitness was produced, it must also be noted that this witness stood on neutral ground, sharing an equal association with both the deceased and the accused. His relationship thus strengthens, rather than weakens, the reliability of his testimony. iv. Although the respondent/ accused attempted to mitigate his culpability by asserting that the pistol had gone off unintentionally, the nature and placement of the injuries leave no room for ambiguity. Had his version regarding lack of intention been correct, all injuries would likely have been in close proximity; instead, the deliberate selection of multiple areas of the body unmistakably indicates an intention to cause death. v. It is a well-settled proposition that a conviction may rest solely upon a voluntary and truthful confessional statement. vi. It is equally well-settled that an appellate court must exercise heightened care while hearing an appeal against acquittal, and even greater caution when it intends to reverse such a finding, as superior courts are ordinarily reluctant to disturb an acquittal rendered by a trial court. vii. True that where an order appears arbitrary or perverse, the appellate court must act with restraint; but equally true the principle that no court of appeal may permit an illegal or unjustified order to stand, if upon re-appraisal, it is satisfied that the evidence on record was not properly appreciated.