Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The case involves cross appeals regarding a contract dispute between the Province of Sindh and Multiline Enterprises over the supply of crawler tractors. The contract was awarded to Multiline in 2011 under a "Delivery Duty Paid" (DDP) basis, which required the supplier to bear all taxes and duties. Multiline sought reimbursement for sales tax and advanced income tax paid upon import due to changes in tax laws after the contract was signed. The Province refused, leading to litigation. The Sindh High Court partially favored Multiline, allowing the sales tax claim but rejecting the income tax claim. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the sales tax paid by Multiline should be reimbursed under Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. ------2- Whether the advance income tax paid by Multiline at the enhanced rate should be reimbursed under Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Sales Tax Reimbursement (Province's Appeal): The Supreme Court held that the reimbursement claim for sales tax should be rejected. The contract explicitly stipulated a DDP basis, meaning the seller (Multiline) was responsible for all taxes and duties, including any increase. The Court reasoned that Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, which allows sellers to adjust prices for tax increases, did not apply because the contract already accounted for tax liabilities. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision and allowed the Province’s appeal. --Advance Income Tax Reimbursement (Multiline's Appeal): The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's rejection of Multiline's claim for reimbursement of advance income tax, noting that Section 64A applies only to indirect taxes like sales tax, customs duty, or excise duty, and not to direct taxes like income tax. Therefore, Multiline's appeal was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (Section 64A) Sales Tax Act, 1990 (Section 3(3)) Pakistan Beverage Ltd. v. Large Taxpayer Unit Karachi, 2010 PTD 2673 (explaining VAT principles and tax liability).

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: FAO: Against order dated 20-06-2018, wherein objection petition U/s 47 CPC by the Judgement debtor appellant was dismissal by the Executing Court.

Summary: Taxes and fee are compulsory exaction. A fee is a charge for the services rendered by the government or company or organization or any other person to the person from whom the fee is received. it is a consideration for the service provided by the Government or its agencies or organization or any person, as the case may be, to the person from whom it is collected. The difference between the two lies in the fact that a tax is not co-related to particular service rendered, but it is intended to meet expenses of Government and fee is meant to compensate Government for expence incurred in rendering service of a special nature. However, the Government or Company or organization or any person disentitles itself from recovering water charges or fee without making them supply of water or water connection. WSSP is not competent to enchance water charges through a notification without having any legal backing.