Summary: The essence of the petitioners' argument was that the officer who issued the Impugned Notices was not appointed in compliance with section 30A of the Sales Tax Act 1990 and should have been appointed by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) as an additional director. They contended that the officer's appointment was not valid, rendering the Impugned Notices invalid.The respondents argued that the officer had been duly appointed and that the petitioners were attempting to evade their legal obligations by challenging the officer's authority. They emphasized that the functions, jurisdiction, and powers of the Directorate General Intelligence & Investigation ? Inland Revenue were legally prescribed.The judgment highlighted that departmental notices are generally not subject to interference unless they lack jurisdiction, constitute an abuse of process, or are malicious or unjust. Therefore, the primary question was whether the Impugned Notices suffered from such defects warranting court intervention.The judgment noted that the petitioners had not contested the Impugned Notices' issuance by an office with appropriate jurisdiction. They objected to the officer's entitlement to hold office but did not raise concerns about the notices' content, context, or any abuses. The court recognized that these petitions effectively amounted to quo warranto actions, where a holder of public office is required to demonstrate their right to hold office.The Supreme Court's position was referenced, emphasizing that quo warranto jurisdiction should only be invoked for compelling reasons and when non-interference would result in grave injustice. In this case, the challenge to the officer's entitlement was found to be a tactic to invalidate the Impugned Notices rather than a genuine concern about injustice.The judgment cited a Division Bench ruling, stating that the mere issuance of a notice under section 37 of the Act, calling for explanations, does not ordinarily provide a valid cause of action for filing a writ petition. It was determined that the petitioners had not justified their non-compliance with due process of law.In conclusion, the court found that the petitioners had not presented a compelling case for the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitions and pending applications were dismissed.

Summary: Quarantine pests. Pakistan Plant Quarantine Rules, 2019-----The case involved a dispute over a consignment of soybeans imported into Pakistan, with the plaintiffs seeking relief from the court against the Department of Plant Protection's (DPP) order to confiscate, destroy, or deport the shipment due to detected plant pests and elevated aflatoxin levels. The importation of soybeans is governed by specific conditions outlined in the Import Policy Order and regulated by the Pakistan Plant Quarantine Rules (PPQR) to prevent the introduction of pests and diseases. Upon inspection, the DPP found plant pests and aflatoxin levels exceeding permissible limits, based on laboratory tests conducted by various institutions. However, the plaintiffs contested these findings, presenting conflicting laboratory reports indicating lower aflatoxin levels and questioning whether the detected pests were indeed quarantine pests as per PPQR definitions. The court, after examining the PPQR provisions and definitions of quarantine pests, determined that the detected pests did not meet the criteria for quarantine pests, necessitating a different course of action. Consequently, the court set aside the DPP's order and directed the application of appropriate treatments, such as fumigation with methyl bromide, to address potential infestations. The consignment would undergo re-inspection and possible release upon compliance with regulations. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to phytosanitary regulations while ensuring fair assessment and treatment of imported goods, balancing public health concerns with the legitimate interests of importers.

Summary: Sindh Entertainment Duty Act, 1958----The plaintiff challenged an entertainment duty demand imposed under the Sindh Entertainments Duty Act, 1958. The plaintiff operates an amusement park and charged an entry ticket fee of Rs. 5, along with an additional Rs. 5 labeled as "utility charges." The Excise & Taxation Department contended that the latter charge constituted an admission fee, evading entertainment duty. Despite the plaintiff's argument that the extra fee covered maintenance costs, the department issued a notice demanding Rs. 11,50,000 in backdated duty and future duty on the additional charge. The plaintiff filed a revision application, which was dismissed, but this was not challenged in the subsequent lawsuit.The central issue revolved around whether the Rs. 5 charged as utility charges attracted entertainment duty. The court, citing the Sindh Entertainments Duty Act, emphasized that the duty applied to all payments for admission to any entertainment. The court concluded that the plaintiff was liable to pay entertainment duty on both the Rs. 5 entry ticket and the additional Rs. 5 utility charges. The dismissal of the revision application was not contested in the lawsuit. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the department, dismissing the suit.

Summary: In this legal document, the court addresses a case involving a dispute over the awarding of a contract for the Sindh Barrages Improvement Project. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the contract was awarded to defendant No.6 without them having a joint venture partner, despite their involvement in similar joint venture projects in the past. The court noted that the defendant No.6 had submitted details of their past contracts and experience, including being a lead partner in joint ventures.The court also mentioned that 17 participants submitted applications for prequalification, and the World Bank reviewed the process, finding no objections. The defendant No.6 submitted the lowest bid, leading to the contract award. The plaintiff had an opportunity to raise objections but failed to do so. The plaintiff later filed a complaint with the World Bank, alleging misprocurement and corrupt practices.The court reviewed emails from the World Bank, which indicated that they had no objection to awarding the contract to defendant No.6, subject to certain clarifications. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence to substantiate their claims of misprocurement and corruption.The court emphasized that the procurement process was conducted in accordance with established guidelines, and the defendant No.6's bid was found to be the lowest. The plaintiff's claim that they should have been awarded the contract despite their higher bid was deemed unwarranted.The court also cited various legal precedents to support its decision, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury when granting injunctions. Ultimately, the court dismissed both applications and upheld the award of the contract to defendant No.6. The decision was dated September 15, 2017, in Karachi.

Summary: This legal case, C.P No. D-1559 of 2019, was heard in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi and involved Dr. Wahid Bux and six others as petitioners versus the Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and another as respondents. The case was heard on May 29, 2019, and the order was issued on the same day by Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman and Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon.The petitioners had initially applied for the position of "Medical Officers" with a specific rank (BPS-17) and were provided interview call letters by the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) in December 2018. They appeared for a written test, were declared successful candidates, and submitted all required qualification documents. However, their candidature was later rejected by the SPSC on the grounds of not submitting a valid Registration Certificate showing all medical qualifications from the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) and a Professional Registration Certificate (PRC) on Form 'D'.The petitioners challenged these rejection letters through this petition, arguing that their fundamental rights were violated. They contended that they had fulfilled all formalities and qualified for the pre-interview written test, and therefore, they had a vested right to participate in the interview.The court examined the case and found that the petitioners had been provisionally allowed to appear for the written test with a condition that their eligibility would be determined after the test. The court also noted that the PMDC registration certificates provided by the petitioners were issued before the cutoff date mentioned in the advertisement.Based on these observations, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the SPSC to allow them to participate in the interview for the Medical Officers' positions (BPS-17). If they qualified in the interview, their results were to be announced accordingly. The court held that the rejection of the petitioners' candidatures was not justified and that they should be given the opportunity to compete for the positions.

Summary: Challenge to a s.37 STA notice couched in quo warranto-----The petitioners challenged the authority of an officer who issued notices (Impugned Notices) under section 37 of the Sales Tax Act 1990. The main contention revolves around the appointment of the issuing officer and whether they were authorized to hold office. The petitioners' contention is that the issuing officer wasn't appointed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. However, the respondents argued that the officer was duly appointed by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and that the appointment doesn't necessarily involve fresh recruitment. The court examined the jurisdiction, powers, and functions of the Directorate General Intelligence & Investigation ? Inland Revenue, under the Sales Tax Act 1990. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, stating that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a valid cause of action for setting aside the notices. The court emphasized that the challenge to the officer's appointment seems to be a means to evade compliance with the inquiry process rather than a legitimate challenge. ----

Summary: Plaint Returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.---The only defence taken by the learned counsel for the plaintiff isthat when he landed at Karachi Airport he came to know aboutimpugned notification dated 26.11.2021, therefore, the cause accruedwithin the territorial limit of this Court. I am afraid this kind of logic isnot tenable in law. The cause of action was accrued when and fromwhere the impugned notification was issued and also at place where inpursuance of such agreement he works or worked for gain, and notwhere he on his arrival or departure informed or where it was brought tohis knowledge. Furthermore, the plaintiff was appointed with defendantat Hyderabad and throughout he was employed there, therefore, if thisplea is taken to be lawful it will make entire scheme of jurisdiction asredundant and such was not the intention of legislation.

Summary: [Service matters (Upgradation), Service matters (Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976)] we asked the learned counsel for respondent-Institution under what law and authority they attempted to nullify the effect of the judgment passed by this Court, maintained by the Honble Supreme Court as discussed supra.

Summary: Audit for successive tax years----- The petitioner argued that since a previous audit had been conducted for a period preceding the one in question, there were no reasonable grounds for initiating another audit. The respondents countered by highlighting that Section 177(7) of the Ordinance allowed for successive audits based on reasonable grounds. The judgment referred to legal precedents to support the State's right to examine a taxpayer's books through audits to ensure correct tax liabilities. The judge emphasized that audit proceedings were a legitimate means of determining accurate tax liability and that the statutory framework, along with Constitutional guarantees, safeguarded the taxpayer's interests. The judgment also cited a previous case's conclusion that, if the notice provided valid reasoning for audit selection, the law did not require a separate inquiry into the taxpayer's objections. The judge noted that the Impugned Notice in this case provided reasoning for the audit selection in the context of a new tax year. The judge found that Section 177(7) of the Ordinance allowed for audits in successive years, and no evidence was presented to suggest that the grounds for the audit specified in the notice were unreasonable. The judge also observed that the petitioner did not assert any infringement of vested Constitutional rights due to the audit selection. The judge deemed the petitioner's arguments lacking in merit and dismissed the petition, along with any pending applications. The judgment concluded with a short order that outlined the dismissal of the case and provided the reasons for this decision.

Summary: In the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, a case involving a dumper truck intercepted on the highway, loaded with smuggled diesel concealed in a specially designed tank, has been heard. The diesel was confiscated, and the truck was allowed release under SRO 499(I)/2009. Subsequently, the order for the outright confiscation of the truck was issued, leading to an appeal. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order and restored the original decision, which led to the present reference application and petition.The key issue is whether the truck should be released under the SRO. The petitioner in the case is the cleaner of the truck, and the owner of the truck is identified as Haji Abdullah. However, the petitioner does not claim ownership of the truck and does not qualify as an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution.Furthermore, the SRO explicitly excludes smuggled items and vehicles carrying smuggled items from its relief provisions. Given that the truck was found carrying smuggled diesel in concealed cavities, there is no justification for extending the benefit of the SRO in this case.The court found that the Impugned Order was in dissonance with the law and the findings in the order in appeal were in the correct appreciation of the law. As a result, the reference application was allowed in favor of the applicant department, and the subject petition, along with pending applications, was dismissed.The decision is in line with the judgment in a similar case before the honorable High Court of Balochistan and is consistent with the law. The ruling was made based on sound legal principles and precedents.References and precedents mentioned in the summary:SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009Muhammad Hanif case (Collector MCC Gaddani vs. Muhammad Hanif, SCRA 09 of 2020)Raja Muhammad Nadeem vs. The State (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 282)SECP vs. East West Insurance Company (2019 SCMR 532)Imtiaz vs Ghulam Ali (PLD 1963 SC 382)Civil Petitions 730-K to 760-K of 2020; Order dated 11.02.2021 (Supreme Court judgment maintaining the Muhammad Hanif case decision).