Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 359ITR (Income Tax Reference) 54-25 PAKISTAN RAILWAY ADVISORY & CONSULTANCY SERVICES VS A.C.I.R ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 25- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4464 2025 PTD 1596 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)] (https://sys.lhc.gov.pk/appjudgments/2025LHC4464.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 133, 134A(2), 134A(11) & 134A(5), second proviso---State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) aggrieved of an order passed by Commissioner-Appeals---Appellate remedies, availing of---Whether an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, or a Reference before the High Court---Held: Reference Application was filed by Pakistan Railways Advisory and Consultancy Services, a State-Owned Enterprise (SOE), as Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('the Appellate Tribunal') proceeded to dispose of appeals of the applicant/SOE, against the order passed by Commissioner-Appeals, being not maintainable---Validity--- Second proviso to subsection (2) of S. 134A ('the proviso-under-examination') of the Income Tax Ordinance ('the Ordinance 2001') explicitly recognizes the right of a SOE to avail appellate remedies in appropriate forums; it stipulates that the SOE is legally competent to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, or to file a reference before the High Court, or to submit a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, as the circumstances may warrant, however, said right is specifically exercisable in situations where subsection (11) of S. 134 of the Ordinance, 2001 is attracted--- In other words, the appellate remedies provided in the proviso-under-examination are contingent upon the applicability of subsection (11) of S. 134A of the Ordinance 2001, which is the triggering provision that confers the jurisdictional foundation for such proceedings---The phrase "as the case may be" signifies that the remedy to be pursued by the SOE depends upon the forum appropriate to the stage and nature of the dispute and the selection of the appellate forum must be in strict accordance with the statutory hierarchy and remedies provided under the law---In short, the proviso-under-examination safeguards the right of appeal subject to the condition that the case falls within the ambit of subsection (11) of S. 134A of the Ordinance 2001, thereby ensuring that such proceedings are not initiated arbitrarily but in accordance with the statutory framework---Legislative scheme, as reflected from a conjoint reading of the proviso-under-examination and subsection (11) of S. 134 of the Ordinance, 2001, envisages a structured dispute resolution mechanism with a defined timeline and mandates that where the Committee, constituted under subsection (5) of S. 134A of the Ordinance, 2001, fails to render its decision within a statutory period of sixty (60) days, the Federal Board of Revenue ('Board') is duty-bound to dissolve the Committee through a written order---Upon such dissolution, the authority to adjudicate the dispute is transferred to the court of law or the relevant appellate forum where the matter is already pending or subsequently pursued under litigation---The proviso-under-examination further supplements said procedure by safeguarding the appellate rights of a SOE; it provides that in cases where said subsection (11) applies, that is, where the Committee stands dissolved due to inaction, the SOE retains an unequivocal right to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, or to submit a reference to the High Court, or to file a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, as may be appropriate to the stage of the proceedings---The expression "as the case may be" indicates that the choice of the appellate forum must strictly correspond with the statutory stage of the case and the forum designated by the applicable procedural laws---When a statute or procedural framework prescribes a sequence of remedies, the parties are bound to exhaust such remedies in the order in which they are provided---The scheme of the law does not permit a party to bypass the statutory sequence or to approach a higher forum without first availing the remedy before the subordinate or initial forum---The proviso-under-examination evidently prescribes a sequence by first approaching the Appellate Tribunal, then to the High Court in a tax reference in terms of S. 133 of the Ordinance 2001 and then to the Supreme Court where subsection (11) of S. 134A of is applicable---In the present case, admittedly, the Committee, appointed under subsection (5) of S. 134A of the Ordinance, 2001, had failed to decide the matter within prescribed time, thus, the proviso-under-examination (i.e. second proviso to subsection (2) of S. 134A of the Ordinance, 2001) was squarely applicable as the applicant/SEO challenged the order of the Commissioner-Appeals before the Appellate Tribunal which was the next higher forum for deciding the issue keeping in view the sequence of hierarchy and procedure applicable in terms of the proviso-under-examination---Thus, the appeals of the applicant / SEO before the Appellate Tribunal were maintainable---High Court set- aside the impugned order passed by Appellate Tribunal; as a sequel, the appeal preferred by the applicant / SEO would be deemed to be pending before the Appellate Tribunal, which would decide the same afresh---Reference Application, filed by State-Owned Enterprise, was allowed accordingly. Messrs National Logistics Cell v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and others 2025 PTD 614 ref. Agha Mujeeb Ahmed Khan for Applicant. Malik Itaat Hussain Awan for Applicant with Yousaf Khan, S.O. IR (Hqrs), RTO, Rawalpindi.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Pendency---Practice of not arresting accused---Accused after dismissal of his pre-arrest bail by High Court, approached Supreme Court to seek pre-arrest bail---Held: Any practice whereby police authorities treat mere filing of a petition before Supreme Court as an implied stay or bar to arrest, despite dismissal of pre-arrest bail, indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of pre-arrest bail---Such relief exists as an exceptional measure to protect individuals against arbitrary or mala fide arrest, where circumstances clearly warrant such protection---Once a competent Court has declined pre-arrest bail, it has necessarily determined that no such exceptional circumstances exist and arrest is lawful and necessary to ensure an effective investigation---Allowing mere act of filing another petition to operate as a de facto stay would render judicial determination meaningless, defeat the objective of ensuring prompt and fair investigation and risk abuse of process by enabling accused persons to indefinitely evade arrest without any legal basis---Judicial orders must remain binding and enforceable unless and until a competent Court expressly orders otherwise---Interim protection is not automatic; it must be specifically sought and expressly granted---In absence of such order, a refusal of bail remains fully operative and must be implemented promptly and in good faith by investigating authorities---Investigating officers and police authorities are legally bound to act upon Court orders dismissing pre-arrest bail immediately, without waiting for further instructions or presuming existence of any stay where none has been granted---Administrative convenience, internal practice, or mere pendency of higher-forum proceedings cannot justify or excuse failure to act in accordance with law---Petitioner withdrew his pre-arrest bail application---Petition was dismissed. Amjad Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with the petitioners for Petitioners. Rana Abdul Majeed, Addl. P.G. Punjab, Sarfraz Khan, S.I. and Waqar Azeem, I.O. for the State. Sher Afghan Asadi, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Dr. Usman Anwar, I.G., Punjab on Court's Call. Date of hearing: 25th June, 2025.

Summary: (a) University of Kotli Act, 2014 ----S. 10(5)(a)—Assignment of additional charge—Temporary or stop-gap arrangement—No vested right created—Petitioner, a senior professor, was temporarily entrusted with charge of Treasurer/DDO “till further orders”; after his arrest and investigation for alleged embezzlement, charge was reassigned—Held, such temporary assignment created no enforceable or perpetual right; continuance or withdrawal lies exclusively within the administrative discretion of the competent authority—No violation of law or mala fides established. (b) Constitutional law (AJ&K) ----Art. 44—Writ jurisdiction—Scope—Extraordinary remedy lies only to redress violation of a legal right or statutory provision—A stop-gap assignment held “till further orders” confers no legal right, hence its withdrawal cannot be challenged through constitutional petition—Temporary or acting incumbents cannot claim parity with regular appointments. (c) Service law—Temporary appointment—Effect ----Temporary entrustment of duties does not ripen into permanence or protection under law—Acceptance of such assignment with the condition “till further orders” bars later challenge to its cessation—Temporary entrants stand on a distinct footing from regular appointees. Held, petitioner failed to demonstrate any infringement of law or denial of a statutory right; writ petition was misconceived and not maintainable. Cited Cases: — (General reference to settled principles on temporary appointments and writ maintainability). Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.