Summary: Pending

Summary: Discussion: (1) Doctrine of ex debito justitiae. (2) Right of representation is provided under Section 21 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 against discharge from service under Rule 12.21 of Police Rules, 1934. (3) Any adverse decision on representation can be challenged under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. ---- he petitioner had been charged with remaining absent from official duty without prior permission while posted at Sadar Division, Dolphin Squad, Lahore.The petitioner argued that the Tribunal wrongly dismissed his appeal as time-barred, contending that the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934, which stated that no appeal lies against an order of discharge, should not override the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.The court, in its judgment dated 5th October 2023, delves into the legal intricacies of the case. It scrutinizes the contention that a departmental appeal was not maintainable under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934, against the order of discharge. The court emphasizes the importance of Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which provides a right of appeal or representation if no specific provision for appeal or review exists in the rules.The judgment notes that while Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934, does not provide a right of appeal against discharge, it does not preclude the filing of a representation, as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.The court criticizes the Tribunal's focus on the nomenclature of the appeal rather than delving into the substance of the petitioner's grievance. It underscores the principles of natural justice, fairness, and the right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with the law.Consequently, the court converts the civil petition into an appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority, treating the petitioner's appeal as a representation under Section 21 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The appellate authority is directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with the law after providing due notice to the parties.

Summary: Background:In the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench case of Khushdil Khan Malik v. Federation of Pakistan and others (W.P.No.3542/2022), the petitioner, Khushdil Khan Malik, filed a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He challenged the actions of various respondents related to the non-consideration of his name for the conferment of the Civil Award of "Sitara-i-Imtiaz" by the President of Pakistan.----Issues:The petitioner alleged that the non-inclusion of his name in the list forwarded to the President for awards was illegal, arbitrary, and violated the judgments of superior courts. He argued that the omission was non-transparent and based on malice, and he sought judicial intervention to have his recommendations considered for the award.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Jawad Hassan ruled that the conferment of a civil award is not a vested right of any citizen and thus cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The court found that the nomination and consideration process for such awards is a discretionary administrative action, guided by specific criteria and procedures outlined by the government. The judge noted that while the petitioner's name was initially recommended by a nominating agency (Federal Government Educational Institutions), it was not forwarded by the Ministry of Defence to the Cabinet Division, which is responsible for the final nominations.The court concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate any legal right to the award that the judiciary could enforce under Article 199 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the petitioner was not found to be an aggrieved person as defined by law, having suffered no legal grievance or infringement of a fundamental right. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.----Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Akbar v. Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Law and Justice (1996 SCMR 1017), which held that government is not bound to accept recommendations for appointments or awards, and such recommendations do not confer a vested right.Nazir A. Khan Swati v. Ministry of Law & Justice and others (1998 PLC [C.S.] 372), which clarified that mere nomination does not create a vested right.Dr. Imran Khattak and another v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, PSO to Chief Justice and others (2014 SCMR 122), asserting that judges are bound by the law and cannot act on personal discretion beyond legal confines.

Summary: Detailed judgement in Urdu

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss.3, 3(8) & 3B----Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007, R.20---SRO 236(I)/2014 dated 31.03.2014---Sales tax from the CNG sector, charging of---Scope---Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited ('SNGPL'), responsibility of---Scope---Department filed reference as the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside concurrent impugned orders---Concurrent adverse orders were passed by the Department against the Respondent (CNG Filling Station ) on the observation that the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited ('SNGPL') was charging sales tax at the rate more than actual rate of CNG in the Nowshera Region so short charging sales tax by SNGPL was recoverable from CNG stations---Validity---For collection of sales tax from CNG Sector, keeping in view provisions of Ss. 3 & 3(8) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, as well as mechanism and guidelines provided under R. 20 of the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007 and SRO 236(I)/2014 dated 31.03.2014 respectively, it could be said that the value of supply of the CNG consumer was linked to the " total value added cost " notified by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) from time to time and accordingly it was the responsibility of the SNGPL to charge sales tax from the CNG sector against the rates notified by the OGRA---Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, accepting the appeal of respondent (CNG Station), was according to law---Resultantly, the questions of law were answered against the Department /Applicant---Reference Application, filed by department, was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss.3 & 30---Sales tax, charging of---Scope---Officer---Jurisdiction---Department filed reference as the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside concurrent impugned orders---Concurrent adverse orders were passed by the Department against the Respondent (CNG Filling Station) on the observation that the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited ('SNGPL') was charging sales tax at the rate more than actual rate of CNG in the Nowshera Region so short charging sales tax by SNGPL was recoverable from CNG stations---Validity---In the present case, the Assessing Officer had relied upon the information provided by the Director General Audit Inland Revenue Receipts ("DGAIRR") through its audit and had not undertaken any independent proceedings/audit and it had been settled that the DGAIRR did not fall within the categories of the officers as provided under S. 30 of the Sales Act, 1990---Since the DGAIRR did not fall within the categories of the officers as provided under S. 30 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, therefore, on the basis of its audit report unless the revenue conducted an independent audit no assessment order could be passed--- Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer was not tenable on the said two premises---Impugned order passed by the Tribunal, accepting the appeal of respondent (CNG station), was according to law---Resultantly, the questions of law were answered against the Department/Applicant---Reference Application, filed by department, was dismissed, in circumstances. Messrs Makk Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd.'s case 2010 PTD 1355 ref. (c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss.3, 3(8) & 3B----Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007, R.20---SRO 236(I)/2014 dated 31.03.2014---Sales tax from the CNG Sector, charging of---Scope---Provision of S. 3B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Applicability---Department filed reference as the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside concurrent impugned orders---Concurrent adverse orders were passed by the Department against the Respondent (CNG Filling Station) on the observation that the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited ('SNGPL') was charging of sales tax at the rate more than actual rate of CNG in the Nowshera Region so short charging sales tax by SNGPL was recoverable from CNG stations---Validity---Assessing Officer had invoked the provision of S. 3B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, however, the said provision of law was not applicable to the present case as it had never been the case that the respondent had collected any tax from the consumer in excess of the actual payable---Therefore, the findings of the Assessing Officer on this score were also erroneous---Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, accepting the appeal of respondent (CNG station), was according to law---Resultantly, the questions of law were answered against the Department/Applicant---Reference Application, filed by department, was dismissed, in circumstances. Ishtiaq Ahmad (Junior) for Petitioner. Danish Ali Qazi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th October, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending