Summary: Background: The petitioner sought revision of judgments passed by the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge of Chichawatni, which dismissed his application to set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree. The original suit was filed by the respondents (legal heirs of Bashir Ahmad) for declaration and permanent injunction, challenging a sale deed and mutation obtained allegedly through fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioner, residing abroad during the proceedings, was not properly served, resulting in an ex-parte judgment. -----Issues: 1- Was the petitioner properly served with summons while residing abroad, as required by law? ----2- Did the Trial Court err in proceeding ex-parte and dismissing the petitioner's application for setting aside the judgment based on improper service? ----3- Is the petitioner entitled to relief from the ex-parte judgment and decree due to the lack of proper notice and due process? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Improper Service: The court found that the petitioner was not properly served while residing in Saudi Arabia. The Trial Court had knowledge that the petitioner was abroad but failed to take the necessary steps for proper service through international channels or registered post, as required by law. Instead, the court relied on local newspaper publication, which did not satisfy the requirements for serving someone residing abroad. --Failure of Courts Below: Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment without addressing the deficiencies in the service process. The Lahore High Court criticized this approach, emphasizing that the legal process for proper service was not followed, rendering the ex-parte judgment procedurally flawed. The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned judgments were set aside. The Trial Court was directed to rehear the suit, providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity to present his defense. The court also emphasized the need for expeditious handling of the case. -----Citations/Precedents: Aziz Khan v. Maiz Muhammad Khan (PLD 1980 Peshawar 227) Anwar Ahmed v. Waqar Ahmed (PLD 2015 Sindh 326) Muhammad Anwar v. Abdul Haq (1985 SCMR 1228) Haji Akbar v. Gul Baran (1996 SCMR 1703) Nargis Latif v. Feroz Afaq Ahmed Khan (2001 SCMR 99) Muhammad Nawaz v. Amir Sultan (2013 CLD 1174) Gohar Ayub v. Muhammad Shafiq (2015 YLR 163)

Summary: The respondent-Shafqat Pervaiz filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- under order 37 of the Civil Procedure of the Code along with accrued markup till realization of the amount based on the cheque against the petitioner--------The petitioner filed application for proceeding against respondent No.1 under sections 193, 420, 419 PPC read with other penal provisions of section 476 PPC read with section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned trial court------------The respondent-Shafqat Pervaiz filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- under order 37 of the Civil Procedure of the Code along with accrued markup till realization of the amount based on the cheque against the petitioner------the petitioner claimed that the respondent stated that he is a retired manager from the bank, which is not correct and, in this way, he committed impersonation. So, the respondent had given false information while filing the above-said suit against the petitioner---------Since the main suit is pend

Summary: Background: The appellant, convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, filed a criminal appeal in the Lahore High Court, seeking to introduce additional evidence in the form of Call Data Records (CDRs). During the trial, the appellant had attempted to introduce CDRs to prove that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the place of recovery, but the trial court dismissed this request. The appellant then filed a miscellaneous application to summon the CDRs and bring additional evidence before the appellate court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant could bring additional evidence at the appellate stage to verify the CDRs? -----2- Whether the CDRs are sufficient to establish the absence of the prosecution witnesses at the crime scene? -----3- Whether the procedural requirements for admitting CDRs as evidence were followed during the trial? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --No Additional Evidence Admissible: The appellate court determined that the appellant’s application to introduce additional evidence did not meet the required conditions for admitting such evidence. It emphasized that additional evidence at the appellate stage must be deemed necessary by the court itself, not based solely on the party’s request. The court found that the CDRs did not provide concrete evidentiary worth sufficient to influence the decision. --Inadequate Proof via CDRs: The court highlighted that CDRs alone are not conclusive evidence to prove the exact presence of an individual at a specific location. Without "voice recording transcripts" or "end-to-end audio recordings" and forensic verification of the CDR, the evidence would be inconclusive regarding the actual user of the mobile phone and their location. --Dismissal of Miscellaneous Application: The court also noted that the appellant’s request to summon a representative of the telecom company was previously rejected by the trial court, and the appellant did not challenge that decision. Since the trial court’s decision had attained finality, the additional evidence request could not be entertained at the appellate stage. The miscellaneous application for summoning additional evidence (CDRs) was dismissed. The court concluded that the CDRs, without further corroboration, did not meet the evidentiary standards required to influence the outcome of the case. The appeal would proceed without the additional evidence. -----Citations/Precedents: Azeem Khan vs. Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274) Mian Khalid Perviz vs. The State (2021 SCMR 522) The State vs. Ahmed Omar Sheikh (2021 SCRM 873) Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 675) Dildar vs. The State (PLD 2001 SC 384)

Summary: Custom Act, 1969 (147)----Valuation of goods; section 25 of the Customs Act; determination in a sequential order; fall back method under section 25(9); how to be applied guidelines

Summary: (frequent transfer and posting) Petitioner has impugned his frequent transfer and posting order dated 04.11.2019 issued by the respondent No.2-Agriculture Supply and Prices Department, Government of Sindh--It is a well settled law that the transfer and posting falls within the ambit of expression terms and conditions of service and the petitioner cannot claim a vested right on a particular post at a particular place. Therefore, the forum chosen by the petitioner by invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not proper under the law. On the aforesaid proposition, the recent decision dated 16.1.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.622 of 2019 is clear in its terms--Dismissed.

Summary: Sindh Consumer Protection Act 2014 (Order VII Rule 11 CPC)-----Consumer Court has no jurisdiction in matters of alleged excessive billing by a Gas Utility Company, it lies with the GAS Utility Court under the 2016 ACT.

Summary: It cannot be a heady acceptance if a jurisdiction is conferred on a mere desire of plaintiff who claimed to have received information at Karachi where he resides without considering the actual adjudication at a place which is away from our jurisdiction. If this is accepted, then the jurisdiction of any trial court may also be altered if it could be established that he/she heard the decision somewhere else. There is a heavy counter admission by plaintiff i.e. his surrender before a jurisdiction beyond this court. The law of jurisdiction takes its own course and while the plaintiff surrendered before the enquiry committee which is admittedly beyond the territorial limits of this court, the follow up procedure concludes his dismissal at Lahore. If the court would accept the statement of plaintiff that he was residing at Karachi hence would determine the jurisdiction, it would negate the long standing principle and doctrine as recognized under section 16-20 CPC. It is the ultimate cause which gives birth to a jurisdiction under normal circumstances and that is dismissal from service at Lahore where he surrendered.

Summary: Background: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue filed a reference against M/s Rafaqat Marketing, challenging an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore. The issue revolves around refund claims based on input invoices issued by suppliers who were later blacklisted or had suspended registration status. The Taxation Officer rejected the refund claims, stating that the suppliers were either non-existent or blacklisted. The taxpayer argued that all necessary documentation was provided, and there was no indication that the suppliers were non-operational at the time of the transactions. The Appellate Tribunal accepted the taxpayer's appeal, prompting the Inland Revenue Department to challenge this decision. -----Issues: Whether the Taxation Officer was justified in rejecting the refund claims based on input invoices issued by suppliers later blacklisted or suspended without proving that the invoices were fraudulent or that the tax was not deposited into the national exchequer? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Rejection of Refund Without Proof: The court ruled that the Taxation Officer cannot reject refund claims solely based on the subsequent blacklisting of suppliers. It must be established through a self-speaking order that the invoices were either fake, flying, or that the claimed tax was not deposited in the national exchequer. The mere fact of later blacklisting does not automatically invalidate the transactions that occurred prior to blacklisting. Burden of Proof on Revenue: The court emphasized that the burden to prove the invalidity of the invoices rests on the revenue department. Only if the department shows that the tax against the disputed invoices was not deposited can the burden shift to the taxpayer. The taxpayer had submitted all necessary documentation, including proof of purchases, payments through banks, and compliance with the Sales Tax Act. Decision in Favor of Taxpayer: The court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, concluding that the Taxation Officer failed to establish that the invoices were fraudulent or that the tax was not deposited. Consequently, the refund claims were deemed valid, and the Appellate Tribunal’s decision was upheld. The reference application was decided against the Inland Revenue Department, and the court upheld the taxpayer’s refund claims. The department is obligated to process the taxpayer’s claims for input tax adjustments and refunds as the invoices were valid at the time of the transactions. -----Citations/Precedents: Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs Ali Hassan Metal Works (2018 PTD 108) Civil Petitions No.432-L, 446-L, 468-L, 469-L, 719-L, 1006-L, 1090-L, 1092-L, 1140-L, 632-L, 447-L, and 695-L of 2018 (07.03.2019) Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Faisalabad v. M/s Sky Pak Enterprises, Faisalabad (18.05.2018)

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the audit report dated 21.10.2022, issued under Section 177(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the show cause notice dated 24.10.2022 under Section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, declaring them illegal and void. Additionally, the petitioner sought the declaration of the Authorization Order dated 27.09.2022 under Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and related coercive actions as unlawful. The petitioner had earlier filed a similar petition (W.P. No.64261/2022) with analogous reliefs. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Authorization Order dated 27.09.2022 issued by the Commissioner Inland Revenue under Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is unlawful. 2- Whether the raid, search, and impounding of records and equipment are lawful and can be used in adjudication proceedings. 3- Whether the actions taken infringed the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 4- Whether the actions violated settled laws and precedents by the Honourable High Courts. 5- Whether there was a reasonable cause for invoking Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. 6- Whether the show cause notice and audit report violated prior court orders. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Authorization Order Validity: The court found the Authorization Order dated 27.09.2022 to be lawful, fulfilling statutory requirements. The petitioner’s non-cooperation in providing the requested documents justified the invocation of Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Lawfulness of Raid and Search: The court ruled that the raid, search, and impounding of records were lawful actions necessary for the audit process. The documents obtained during the search could be used for audit purposes. ---Constitutional Rights: No fundamental rights of the petitioner were found to be violated by the actions of the tax authorities. Compliance with Court Orders and Precedents: The actions did not violate prior court orders or precedents. The court differentiated the facts of the present case from those in the cited precedents. Reasonable Cause for Action: The court determined that there was a reasonable cause for invoking Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, given the petitioner’s failure to cooperate with the audit process. Compliance with Prior Orders: The court found no violation of the prior court order dated 19.10.2022 in the issuance of the show cause notice and the audit report. ----Citations/Precedents: Collector of Customs, Lahore v. Nestle Milk Pack Limited, Sheikhupura (2007 PTD 921) Muhammad Waheed through Attorney v. Customs Appellate Tribunal and another (2016 PTD 35) Province of West Pakistan through Secretary, Social Welfare and Local Government Department v. Ch. Din Muhammad and others (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 21) Agha Steel Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation through Director and 2 others (2019 PTD 2119) Khurram Shahzad v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2019 PTD 1124) K.K. Oil and Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federal Board of Revenue and others (2016 PTD 2601) A.M.Z. Spinning & Weaving Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager Finance v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division/Ex-Officio Chairman, C.B.R., Islamabad and 2 others (2009 PTD 1083) Messrs Ihsan Yousaf Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others (2003 PTD 2037) Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 4 others v. Messrs Master Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director (2003 PTD 1034) Collector of Sales Tax and others v. Messrs Food Consults (Pvt.) Ltd. and another (2007 PTD 2356) Pakistan Petroleum Limited through authorized Officer v. Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 4 others (2016 PTD 2664) Raza Motor Industries through Authorized Representative v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Revenue Division, Islamabad and 3 others (2022 PTD 19) Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Sialkot and others v. Messrs Allah Din Steel and Rolling Mills and others (2018 SCMR 1328) Khan Bacha v. The State (PLD 2006 Karachi 698) Collector of Customs, Islamabad v. Messrs Askari Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (2020 SCMR 649) Atlas Honda Ltd. through authorized attorney v. Pakistan through Secretary Revenue and 3 others (2022 PTD 866) D.G. Khan Cement Company Limited, etc. v. The Federal Board of Revenue (W.P. No.15880/2021, judgment dated 27.04.2022)

Summary: Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021: Obligations of the State and the rights of the victims