Summary: Background: The respondent, Muhammad Khalid Chaudhry, filed his income tax return for the tax year 2015 late, resulting in automatic selection for audit under Section 214-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue amended the assessment, increasing the taxable income and creating a tax demand of Rs.16,870,606. Both the Commissioner Inland Revenue Appeals and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue upheld the demand. The respondent challenged the audit's validity, arguing that Section 214-D had been repealed before the audit proceedings, making them invalid. The Appellate Tribunal annulled the audit and demand, leading to the department's appeal in the High Court. Issues: 1) Whether the audit initiated under Section 214-D after its repeal through the Finance Act, 2018, was legally valid. 2) Whether the retrospective application of the repeal could invalidate audit proceedings initiated for the tax year 2015. ----Holding/Reasoning: Audit after Repeal: The court held that since Section 214-D of the Income Tax Ordinance was repealed by the Finance Act, 2018, effective May 22, 2018, any audit initiated under this section after its repeal, including the audit in question, was invalid. The audit proceedings were initiated on November 8, 2018, long after the repeal, and thus could not be legally sustained. Retrospective Application: The court noted that if the legislature had intended to preserve ongoing audits under Section 214-D, it would have included a saving clause in the Finance Act. The absence of such a provision indicated that the repeal applied retrospectively, invalidating all pending audits initiated under the repealed section. Section 214-E: The court pointed out that Section 214-E, introduced in October 2018, provided that audits initiated under the repealed Section 214-D would be abated, further strengthening the respondent's case. Substantive vs. Procedural Law: The court emphasized that procedural amendments typically apply retrospectively unless they affect substantial rights. Since the repeal of Section 214-D was substantive, the general rule of prospective application applied. The court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, upholding the decision of the Appellate Tribunal that the audit proceedings initiated under the repealed section were invalid. ---- Outcome: The High Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, answering the legal question in the affirmative against the Inland Revenue Department and invalidating the audit proceedings. The Reference Application was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Hamid Mahmood v. Federation of Pakistan (W.P. No.49412 of 2019): The court held that Section 214-D was omitted by the Finance Act, 2018, and could not be applied after its repeal. Controller General of Accounts, Govt. of Pakistan v. Abdul Waheed (2023 SCMR 111): The court held that statutes affecting substantive rights operate prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. Niaz Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan (2008 PTD 1517): The court highlighted that procedural laws apply retrospectively unless they affect substantive rights. Commissioner Inland Revenue, Islamabad v. Messrs Wise Communication System (2019 PTD 2313): This case reiterated that procedural changes apply retrospectively unless they impact vested rights.

Summary: Jail Appeal in FIR No. 220/2017 dated 24.08.2017 U/s 302/449 PPC P.S. Lohi Bhair, Islamabad

Summary: The court cited precedents such as "MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs. ALLAH DITTA" (2021 SCMR 1241) and "Messrs DW PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED LAHORE vs. Begum ANISA FAZL-IMAHMOOD" (2023 SCMR 555) to underscore that the plaintiff, seeking specific performance, must convincingly demonstrate both intention and financial capacity to perform the contract. The court asserted that continuous readiness and willingness from the date the balance sale consideration became due until the suit's conclusion were prerequisites for the grant of specific performance.In adherence to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which confers discretionary power on the court to issue a decree of specific performance, Justice Muhammad Raza Qureshi emphasized that the court is not obligated to grant such relief arbitrarily. The court underscored the significance of balancing the rights of both contracting parties and the need for the vendee to deposit the balance sale consideration in court to demonstrate both capacity and willingness. The judgment cited "KHAIRAT ALI vs. SAQIB ASHFAQ" (2023 CLC 926) as a relevant case highlighting the importance of these principles.The court concluded that the trial court's direction for the appellants to deposit the balance sale consideration was in accordance with established legal principles. The judgment rejected the appellants' contentions of undue haste by the trial court, finding them meritless in light of the specific circumstances of the case. In essence, Justice Muhammad Raza Qureshi upheld the discretionary nature of specific performance decrees, emphasizing the appellants' failure to meet the legal standards for such relief. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Criminal Petition Nos. 1710-L & 1329 of 2017 were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court in Murder Reference No. 414/2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 2278/2014. The petitioners sought relief against their convictions and sentences in a murder case.---Issues:Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether there were any contradictions or inconsistencies in the prosecution's case that undermined its credibility.Whether the acquittal of a co-accused affected the petitioner's case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi, Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Court found significant doubts and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including discrepancies in witness testimonies and medical evidence. It noted that the prosecution had failed to establish a clear motive for the crime and that the identification of the co-accused was unreliable. Relying on established legal principles, the Court concluded that the evidence presented did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction. Therefore, the Court acquitted the petitioner of all charges and ordered their release from jail.Regarding Criminal Petition No. 1329 of 2017, seeking enhancement of the petitioner's sentence, the Court deemed it infructuous in light of the judgment in the connected Criminal Petition No. 1710-L/2017 and dismissed it accordingly.---Citations/Precedents:The Court cited various legal principles and precedents, including Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64), Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048), and Abdul Jabbar v. State (2019 SCMR 129), to support its decision to acquit the petitioner due to doubts in the prosecution's case.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Whether the respondent-department can resort to the provisions of the "Act, 1975" instead of invoking the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending