Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 2(h) & 6 Maintainability of harassment complaint—Complainant alleged psychological harassment by the Bank due to her transfer and subsequent disciplinary actions—Complaint dismissed as it did not meet the definitions of harassment under the Act, specifically sexual harassment or gender-based discrimination—The complaint was found to pertain to terms of service rather than harassment, thus falling outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsperson. (b) Service and Disciplinary Matters ----Adjudication—The Ombudsperson has no jurisdiction over service or disciplinary matters—Cited Supreme Court case law confirming that such issues do not fall within the ambit of the Act—Complaint related to the complainant’s transfer and disciplinary action deemed a service grievance, not harassment. (c) Gender-Based Discrimination ----S. 2(h)(ii)—Complaint of discrimination not supported by evidence—The Bank routinely transferred female employees—Complainant failed to show evidence of a discriminatory mindset or practice against her gender by the Bank or its senior female staff—Comparison with same-sex harassment cases in US law reaffirmed the absence of gender discrimination in this case. Disposition: Complaint dismissed; found to be outside the scope of harassment as defined by the Act and more aligned with service-related grievances.

Summary: (a) Sales Tax Act, 1990: ---Ss. 25, 30, 47(5), 72-B--- Audit conducted by unauthorized officer---Invalidity of assessment orders based on audit reports by non-authorized personnel--- Assessment orders issued based on audits conducted by the Director General Audit Inland Revenue Receipts (DGAIRR), who is not an authorized officer under Section 30 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, are invalid. Without further verification or a valid audit under Section 25 or 72-B, such assessments cannot be sustained. ----Cited Cases: Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise, Peshawar v. Makk Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. (2010 PTD 1355) (b) Tax Assessment: Judicial Precedents and Principles of Judicial Discipline--- When judicial precedents establish that assessments based on audits by unauthorized officers are invalid, subsequent cases must follow this principle for consistency and adherence to judicial discipline. ----Disposition: The Sales Tax References filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Corporate Zone), Peshawar, were dismissed as the assessment orders were based on audits conducted by unauthorized officers. The Court directed that if the department intends to proceed further, it must conduct a fresh audit under applicable legal provisions.

Summary: If the tenancy agreement introduced by the petitioner in his defence in the application for leave to contest was not registered or it was not conforming to the provisions of the "Act, 2009", the Rent Tribunal can, at the most, halt further proceedings in the matter and direct the petitioner to pay the penalty in terms of section 9 of the "Act, 2009" within specified period of time. If such amount was deposited by the petitioner within specified period, his application for leave to contest should be proceeded with further and in case of failure, it should have been dismissed. Section 9 of the "Act, 2009" is not restricted only to the application filed by the landlord, more particularly the ejectment petition. In other words, any application either by the landlord or tenant, as the case may be, when brought before the Rent Tribunal under the "Act, 2009" for enforcement of his rights under the tenancy agreement not conforming to the provisions of the "Act, 2009", can be proceeded after having a recourse to section 9 of the "Act, 2009" by directing the landlord or the tenant to deposit the penalty.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a cooperative housing society, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging two orders passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Punjab, and the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Punjab. These orders were related to an inquiry into the constitution, working, and financial condition of the petitioner society under Section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the Secretary Cooperative Department had the authority to initiate and uphold an inquiry into the society’s affairs under Section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. ----2- Whether the impugned orders dated 22.09.2023 and 03.10.2023 were passed in accordance with the law. ----3- Whether the court should interfere with the inquiry initiated by the Registrar and upheld by the Secretary. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled that the Registrar was acting within his legal authority under Section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, which empowers the Registrar to initiate inquiries into the constitution, working, and financial condition of a cooperative society. The inquiry was deemed necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the society's affairs in the interest of its members. The Secretary, Cooperative Department, acted lawfully under Section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, which provides the Provincial Government and Registrar the power to review the proceedings of subordinate officers. The Secretary’s actions were also justified under Rule 10 of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that there was no legal infirmity in the impugned orders and that the inquiry was necessary to maintain transparency and legality in the cooperative society's operations. -----Citations/Precedents: Shahbaz Qalandar Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Province of Sindh (2011 CLC 783) Saddar Cooperative Market Ltd. vs. Province of Sindh (2009 CLC 143) Pir Illahi Bukhsh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies (1968 SCMR 423) Asif Saleem vs. Chairman BOG University of Lahore (PLD 2019 Lahore 407)

Summary: Background: M/s Nordex Singapore Equipment Ltd. ("Petitioner"), an offshore company registered in Singapore, entered into an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contract with FFC Energy Ltd. ("Respondent No.3") for the supply of wind power equipment. The equipment was imported and transferred to FFCEL, with payments made partially in advance and upon completion. The Petitioner filed for an advance ruling from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) seeking exemption from tax deduction under Section 152 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, citing the Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaty (ADTT) between Pakistan and Singapore. The FBR directed FFCEL to deduct tax from the Petitioner before remitting payments, leading to the filing of this writ petition. -----Issues: 1) Whether the income arising from the offshore supply of goods is taxable in Pakistan under the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement between Pakistan and Singapore. --2) Whether the Petitioner is liable for tax deduction under Section 152 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. ---3) Whether FFC Energy Ltd. can remit payments to the Petitioner without tax deduction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Holding: The Lahore High Court held that the Commissioner Inland Revenue’s decision to deduct tax from the Petitioner was flawed, as it failed to properly consider the EPC contract, the Double Taxation Treaty, and the relevant legal provisions. ----Reasoning: The Court found that the FBR had not adequately addressed the Petitioner’s arguments regarding its non-resident status and the Double Taxation Treaty between Pakistan and Singapore. The Court emphasized that the Petitioner did not have a permanent establishment in Pakistan, and the supply of goods took place outside Pakistan. Therefore, the Commissioner failed to provide a "speaking order" addressing all material facts. The Court held that the order was arbitrary and lacked proper reasoning, thus requiring fresh consideration. ----Outcome: The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Commissioner Inland Revenue for fresh consideration, directing the Commissioner to provide proper hearing to all parties. The Court also ruled that no coercive measures should be taken against the Petitioner until a final decision is made. ----Citations/Precedents: MOLLAH EJAHAR ALI v. GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN (PLD 1970 SC 173) TOWN COMMITTEE, PIPLAN v. Muhammad Hanif and others (2008 SCMR 723) GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN v. FARHEEN RASHID (2011 SCMR 1) Messrs UNITED WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. WORKERS' UNION v. Messrs UNITED WOOLLEN MILLS LTD (2010 SCMR 1475) ALTAF IBRAHIM QURESHI v. AAM LOG ITTEHAD (PLD 2019 SC 745) CHENAB FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (PLD 2021 Lahore 343) MURREE BREWERY CO. LTD. v. PAKISTAN (PLD 1972 SC 279) SARGODHA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED v. HABIB BANK LIMITED (2007 SCMR 1240) M.C.R (PVT.) LTD. FRANCHISEE OF PIZZA HUT v. MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2021 CLD 639) MIAN ASGHAR ALI v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (2017 SCMR 118) SHAHEEN MERCHANT v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN/NATIONAL TARIFF COMMISSION (2021 PTD 2126 Lahore) SHELL PAKISTAN LIMITED v. PUNJAB (2020 PTD 1607)