Summary: Section 3 Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972--- Article 31 & 35 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. A widow who was inducted on contract employment due to death of her husband during service, was terminated from service due to contracting second marriage---- held that marriage or re-marriage is a religious and fundamental right of a woman and any step /action taken in contravention of such right would be illegal, unlawful and ultra vires. A civil servant passed away during his service upon which his widow was appointed as Naib Qasid. But on her re-marriage, her services were terminated under Memorandum dated 15.12.2015 issued by the Establishment Division whereby on remarriage of a widow the contract of employment provided to her would be terminated from the date of her remarriage. The said Memorandum dated 15.12.2015 had already been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Thus no immunity/ protection is attached to such illegal order of an authority. Intra Court Appeal allowed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Section 3 Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972--- Article 31 & 35 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. A widow who was inducted on contract employment due to death of her husband during service, was terminated from service due to contracting second marriage---- held that marriage or re-marriage is a religious and fundamental right of a woman and any step /action taken in contravention of such right would be illegal, unlawful and ultra vires. A civil servant passed away during his service upon which his widow was appointed as Naib Qasid. But on her re-marriage, her services were terminated under Memorandum dated 15.12.2015 issued by the Establishment Division whereby on remarriage of a widow the contract of employment provided to her would be terminated from the date of her remarriage. The said Memorandum dated 15.12.2015 had already been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Thus no immunity/ protection is attached to such illegal order of an authority. Intra Court Appeal allowed. 974Writ Petition- Family- Guardianship 452-24 IRFAN ARSHAD VS MST. ZAINAB NOOR ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 10- 09- 2024 2024 LHC 5971 2025 MLD 401 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 11(2) & 74---Condonation of time limit by the Federal Board of Revenue---Petitioner/company filed constitutional petition against action under S. 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ('the Act, 1990') whereby it was alleged that it had claimed a refund which was not admissible under the Act, 1990---Case of the petitioner/company was that the Show-Cause Notice, issued by the Department /Respondent , envisaged the same dispute which had already been decided by the courts up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan--- Department/Respondents, relying on certain documents, contended that impugned-action had been taken after approval from FBR for condonation of time limit under S. 74 of the Act, 1990 after due process/communication commencing from a letter addressed by the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue on 26.04.2022 and culminating into approval letter dated 01-07-2022 by the FBR with certain terms ('FBR Approval Letter)---Validity---Federal Board of Revenue Approval Letter revealed that the time limit was condoned up to 29.08.2022 and obviously the proceedings in the Show-Cause Notice which was issued on 22.08.2022 were not finalized by that/said date--- Hence, proceedings beyond the condonation of time limit up to 29.08.2022 were ultra vires and beyond the jurisdiction of the officer issuing the Show-Cause Notice---The very basis on which Show-Cause Notice had been triggered was the exercise of power conferred under S.74 of the Act, 1990 by FBR whereby time limit was condoned up to 29.08.2022 for finalization of assessment proceedings---High Court struck down / quashed the Impugned Show-Cause Notices directing the Respondents / Department to process the refund claims of the petitioner/company within the next three months---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 11(2) & 74---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitution petition---Assessment / recovery of tax not levied/ short levied---Condonation of time limit by the Federal Board of Revenue--- Scope --- Petitioner/company filed constitutional petition against action under S.11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ('the Act, 1990') whereby it was alleged that it had claimed a refund which was not admissible under the Act 1990---Case of the petitioner/company was that the Show-Cause Notice, issued by the Department /Respondent, envisaged the same dispute which had already been decided by the courts up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan--- Department /Respondents, relaying on certain documents, contended that impugned-action had been taken after approval from FBR for condonation of time limit under S. 74 of the Act, 1990 after due process/communication commencing from a letter addressed by the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue on 26.04.2022 and culminating into approval letter dated 01-07-2022 by the FBR with certain terms ('FBR Approval Letter)---Validity--- Section 74 of the Act, 1990 grants power to the Board to permit an act or thing to be done within such period or time as it may be considered appropriate---This condonation applies where any time or period has been specified under any provision of the Act or rules within which any application is to be made or any of the act or thing is to be done--- The condonation may under peculiar circumstances permit such act or thing to be done within an extended period of time--- Quite clearly, this provision does not apply to an action being taken under S. 11 (now repealed) which relates to assessment of tax and recovery of tax not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded---The action against the petitioner/company was being taken under S.11(2) of the Act, 1990 and alleged that the petitioner-company had claimed a refund which was not admissible under the Act---There have to be reasonable and rational grounds which should compel the Board to make an order in the nature of the one envisaged by S. 74 of the Act, 1990---No guidelines or parameters have been mentioned in S.74 of the Act, 1990 and the least that FBR should do is to provide reasons for extending the limitation period---There cannot be unbridled reversal of statutory period of limitation as legal rights have come to accrue in the registered person---There were no reasonable grounds mentioned in the letter of condonation by FBR which would give power to the officer to issue a Show-Cause Notice after almost 15 years--- High Court struck down / quashed the Impugned Show-Cause Notices directing the Respondents/ Department to process the refund claims of the petitioner/company within the next three months---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Federal Board of Revenue through Chairman, Islamabad and others v. Abdul Ghani and another 2021 SCMR 1154 ref. (c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----S.74--- Condonation of time-limit--- Powers---Under S. 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 exercise of power or a request made by an officer of Inland Revenue is not automatic---Reasonable cause has to be spelt out both in the application as well as in the permission granted on that application---It is not enough for FBR to simply condone the time limit and this must be supported by reasons and on the basis of documents which would show that there were circumstances beyond the control of officers of Inland Revenue at the relevant time which constrained them from taking action under the normal time limit. (d) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 11(2) & 74---Condonation of time limit by the Federal Board of Revenue--- Scope--- Petitioner/company filed constitutional petition against action under S.11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ('the Act, 1990') whereby it was alleged that it had claimed a refund which was not admissible under the Act, 1990---Case of the petitioner/company was that the Show-Cause Notice, issued by the Department /Respondent, envisaged the same dispute which had already been decided by the courts up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan--- Validity--- Record revealed that there were no reasonable grounds mentioned in the letter of condonation by FBR which would give power to the officer to issue a Show-Cause Notice after almost 15 years---In the meantime, rights had come to vest in the petitioner/company which could not be upset by issuance of Show-Cause Notice---Issuance of show cause notice clearly smacked of mala fide as refund claim of the petitioner / company had been delayed and instead of doing so, petitioner/company had been served with a frivolous and vicious Show-Cause Notice---High Court struck down / quashed the Impugned Show-Cause Notices directing the Respondents/ Department to process the refund claims of the petitioner/company within the next three months---Constitutional petition is allowed, in circumstances. M. Sohail Iqbal Bhatti for Petitioner. Mohammad Sulaman Bhatti for Respondent-Department. Date of hearing: 11th September, 2024.

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 196 & 202---Customs Recovery Rules, 1992, Rr. 7 & 8---Reference---Recovery of customs duty---Liability of directors of importer company---Applicant / director of importer company was aggrieved of attachment of her house to seek recovery of outstanding duties and taxes for goods imported by respondent / company---Validity---At the relevant time Customs Recovery Rules, 1992 did not contain any provision intended to impose liability on directors for payment of taxes and duties owned by importer company or to bring into the net the transaction for transfer of property in dispute or to declare applicant / director and her mother as defaulter---Applicant / director when confronted with proclamation of attachment of her property, rightly filed application for becoming party to appeal of company in order to support its case against order-in-original---Customs Appellate Tribunal having allowed application of petitioner / director was required to adjudicate upon her claim which it in fact did through its order by rejecting the same on merits---Petitioner / director rightly filed reference before High Court---High Court decided all the questions in affirmative in favour of applicant / director---Reference was allowed, in circumstances. H.M. Extraction Ghee and Oil Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Federal Board of Revenue 2019 SCMR 1081 ref. Uzair Karamat Bhandari, Ali Uzair Bhandari and Imran Iqbal for Applicant. Rana Mehtab for Respondent No.5. Date of hearing: 11th September, 2024.