Summary: (a) Employment- -Employees of Pakistan Steel Mill (PSM)-Vires of amendment in Gratuity Rules-Withholding of financial benefits/gratuity-Doctrine of sub silentio-Scope-Decision of High Court on the basis of financial constraints of PSM instead of legal/constitutional grounds-Legality-Every employee is entitled to the payment of his full and final settlement on his superannuation-Non-payment of gratuity has nothing to do with losses or financial crunch, quite the reverse, the amount of gratuity, provident fund and pension is an inherent/vested right of every retired employee which is deep-seated in the Industrial Relations and Civil Service Laws-Every employer without any pretext or deferment is bound to pay off this liability immediately on the eve of retirement rather than delaying or shelving this vested right for an indefinite period or putting this obligation in a state of uncertainty-Many crucial questions of law were raised by the petitioners which were not considered by the High Court but the substrata of decision paid attention only to the alleged financial crunch rather than adverting to the spectrum of plea of vires of amendment in the Gratuity Rules including the other claims/benefits on the touchstone of applicable laws, thus, the judgment of High Court was also hit by the doctrine of "sub silentio"-Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed. Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 1583; Annoor Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1994 SC 568; Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652; Sheikh Fazal Ahmed v. Raja Ziaullah Khan PLD 1964 SC 494; Works Cooperative Housing Society and another v. Karachi Development Authority PLD 1969 SC 430; Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Azizuddin Industries PLD 1970 SC 439; Commissioner of Sales Tax (West) Karachi v. Kauddsons Ltd. PLD 1974 SC 180 and Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1979 SC 190 rel. (b) Words and phrases- -Expression-Gratuity-Meaning and scope-Expression-gratuity-delineates a lump-sum/consolidated amount of money remunerated by an employer to an employee leading up to formal retirement, which is always regarded as significant milestone that marks the end of employee's career and starting of a new chapter in his life-Gratuity is a financial benefit provided as a token of gratitude for an employee's loyalty, efficient service and completion of certain years of service and depending upon the terms and conditions of employment, it becomes a legal obligation rather than a voluntary benefit-Sometimes it may be classified as bounty but if its payment obligation is structured and regulated by legal provisions/rules or regulations, then its payment turns into indispensable and mandatory rather than considering it a mere bounty. (c) Precedent- -Sub silentio-Meaning and scope-Sub silentio-, a Latin term, literally translates to"under silence"or"in silence"-In legal milieus, it points towards an incidence where the Court decides a lis without appreciating or deliberating the particular point of law raised before it, which disturbs the precedential value of the judgment-Such doctrine often denotes that if the court, in its judgment, overlooked or dispensed with a crucial point of law raised before it, then the precedential value of such decision is seriously disturbed-Decision is not binding if it was reached at without argument, without reference to the critical terms of the law and without citation of authority and such a decision, taken as sub silentio, lacks authoritative weight. Syed Saad Ali and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry and others 2025 SCP 318 and Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675 rel. (d) Administration of justice- -Each case has to be decided on its own facts-Each litigant ought to be provided a fair chance of hearing to present and plead his case and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the merits of the case. (e) Interpretation of statutes- -Vires of law, rules or regulations can be challenged if its provisions are ex facie discriminatory, in which case actual proof of discriminatory treatment is not required to be shown, but there is also a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactments, unless it is ex facie violative of a constitutional provision. Lahore Development Authority v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others 2015 SCMR 1739 rel.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 16.10.2024 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Tax References Nos. 27-P to 29-P of 2014). Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Second Schedule, Part-I, Clause 58 (2)(1)---Exemption from income tax---Certificate under Clause 58(2)(1) of Part-I of Second Schedule to Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Petitioner / company sought tax exemption on the plea that it was subsidiary of Frontier Constabulary Foundation, which was duly exempted from tax---Validity---Petitioner / company did not fall in the category identified in Clause 58 (2)(1) of Part-I of Second Schedule of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Petitioner/company was an independent legal entity registered under company’s laws and could not derive such benefits as extended to Frontier Constabulary Foundation---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter as the entire income derived by petitioner / company was liable to tax---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Jahanzeb Masud, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in all cases). Shahid Raza Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (through video-link from Peshawar) (in all cases). Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, Director-General, Law, FBR and Arfat Rasool, Secretary Legal, FBR [Both at Islamabad] (in all cases). Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2025.

Summary: (Against the impugned consolidated judgment dated 16.01.2023 in C.P. No. D-3105 of 2017, C.P. No. D-8295 of 2018 and C.P. No. D-4321 of 2020, rendered by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi). (a) Employment--- ----Employees of Pakistan Steel Mill (PSM)---Vires of amendment in Gratuity Rules---Withholding of financial benefits/gratuity---Doctrine of sub silentio---Scope---Decision of High Court on the basis of financial constraints of PSM instead of legal/constitutional grounds---Legality---Every employee is entitled to the payment of his full and final settlement on his superannuation---Non-payment of gratuity has nothing to do with losses or financial crunch, quite the reverse, the amount of gratuity, provident fund and pension is an inherent/vested right of every retired employee which is deep-seated in the Industrial Relations and Civil Service Laws---Every employer without any pretext or deferment is bound to pay off this liability immediately on the eve of retirement rather than delaying or shelving this vested right for an indefinite period or putting this obligation in a state of uncertainty---Many crucial questions of law were raised by the petitioners which were not considered by the High Court but the substrata of decision paid attention only to the alleged financial crunch rather than adverting to the spectrum of plea of vires of amendment in the Gratuity Rules including the other claims/benefits on the touchstone of applicable laws, thus, the judgment of High Court was also hit by the doctrine of "sub silentio"---Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed. Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 1583; Annoor Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1994 SC 568; Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652; Sheikh Fazal Ahmed v. Raja Ziaullah Khan PLD 1964 SC 494; Works Cooperative Housing Society and another v. Karachi Development Authority PLD 1969 SC 430; Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Azizuddin Industries PLD 1970 SC 439; Commissioner of Sales Tax (West) Karachi v. Kauddsons Ltd. PLD 1974 SC 180 and Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1979 SC 190 rel. (b) Words and phrases--- ----Expression “Gratuity”---Meaning and scope---Expression “gratuity” delineates a lump-sum/consolidated amount of money remunerated by an employer to an employee leading up to formal retirement, which is always regarded as significant milestone that marks the end of employee's career and starting of a new chapter in his life---Gratuity is a financial benefit provided as a token of gratitude for an employee's loyalty, efficient service and completion of certain years of service and depending upon the terms and conditions of employment, it becomes a legal obligation rather than a voluntary benefit---Sometimes it may be classified as bounty but if its payment obligation is structured and regulated by legal provisions/rules or regulations, then its payment turns into indispensable and mandatory rather than considering it a mere bounty. (c) Precedent--- ----“Sub silentio”---Meaning and scope---“Sub silentio”, a Latin term, literally translates to "under silence" or "in silence"---In legal milieus, it points towards an incidence where the Court decides a lis without appreciating or deliberating the particular point of law raised before it, which disturbs the precedential value of the judgment---Such doctrine often denotes that if the court, in its judgment, overlooked or dispensed with a crucial point of law raised before it, then the precedential value of such decision is seriously disturbed---Decision is not binding if it was reached at without argument, without reference to the critical terms of the law and without citation of authority and such a decision, taken as sub silentio, lacks authoritative weight. Syed Saad Ali and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry and others 2025 SCP 318 and Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675 rel. (d) Administration of justice--- ----Each case has to be decided on its own facts---Each litigant ought to be provided a fair chance of hearing to present and plead his case and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the merits of the case. (e) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Vires of law, rules or regulations can be challenged if its provisions are ex facie discriminatory, in which case actual proof of discriminatory treatment is not required to be shown, but there is also a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactments, unless it is ex facie violative of a constitutional provision. Lahore Development Authority v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others 2015 SCMR 1739 rel. Muhammad Haseeb Jamali, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Mohsin Qadir Shahwani, Additional Attorney General Pakistan and Agha Zafar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 16.10.2024 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Tax References Nos. 27-P to 29-P of 2014). Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Second Schedule, Part-I, Clause 58 (2)(1)---Exemption from income tax---Certificate under Clause 58(2)(1) of Part-I of Second Schedule to Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Petitioner / company sought tax exemption on the plea that it was subsidiary of Frontier Constabulary Foundation, which was duly exempted from tax---Validity---Petitioner / company did not fall in the category identified in Clause 58 (2)(1) of Part-I of Second Schedule of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Petitioner/company was an independent legal entity registered under company’s laws and could not derive such benefits as extended to Frontier Constabulary Foundation---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter as the entire income derived by petitioner / company was liable to tax---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Jahanzeb Masud, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in all cases). Shahid Raza Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (through video-link from Peshawar) (in all cases). Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, Director-General, Law, FBR and Arfat Rasool, Secretary Legal, FBR [Both at Islamabad] (in all cases). Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2025.

Summary: (Against the impugned consolidated judgment dated 16.01.2023 in C.P. No. D-3105 of 2017, C.P. No. D-8295 of 2018 and C.P. No. D-4321 of 2020, rendered by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi). (a) Employment--- ----Employees of Pakistan Steel Mill (PSM)---Vires of amendment in Gratuity Rules---Withholding of financial benefits/gratuity---Doctrine of sub silentio---Scope---Decision of High Court on the basis of financial constraints of PSM instead of legal/constitutional grounds---Legality---Every employee is entitled to the payment of his full and final settlement on his superannuation---Non-payment of gratuity has nothing to do with losses or financial crunch, quite the reverse, the amount of gratuity, provident fund and pension is an inherent/vested right of every retired employee which is deep-seated in the Industrial Relations and Civil Service Laws---Every employer without any pretext or deferment is bound to pay off this liability immediately on the eve of retirement rather than delaying or shelving this vested right for an indefinite period or putting this obligation in a state of uncertainty---Many crucial questions of law were raised by the petitioners which were not considered by the High Court but the substrata of decision paid attention only to the alleged financial crunch rather than adverting to the spectrum of plea of vires of amendment in the Gratuity Rules including the other claims/benefits on the touchstone of applicable laws, thus, the judgment of High Court was also hit by the doctrine of "sub silentio"---Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed. Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 1583; Annoor Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1994 SC 568; Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652; Sheikh Fazal Ahmed v. Raja Ziaullah Khan PLD 1964 SC 494; Works Cooperative Housing Society and another v. Karachi Development Authority PLD 1969 SC 430; Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Azizuddin Industries PLD 1970 SC 439; Commissioner of Sales Tax (West) Karachi v. Kauddsons Ltd. PLD 1974 SC 180 and Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1979 SC 190 rel. (b) Words and phrases--- ----Expression “Gratuity”---Meaning and scope---Expression “gratuity” delineates a lump-sum/consolidated amount of money remunerated by an employer to an employee leading up to formal retirement, which is always regarded as significant milestone that marks the end of employee's career and starting of a new chapter in his life---Gratuity is a financial benefit provided as a token of gratitude for an employee's loyalty, efficient service and completion of certain years of service and depending upon the terms and conditions of employment, it becomes a legal obligation rather than a voluntary benefit---Sometimes it may be classified as bounty but if its payment obligation is structured and regulated by legal provisions/rules or regulations, then its payment turns into indispensable and mandatory rather than considering it a mere bounty. (c) Precedent--- ----“Sub silentio”---Meaning and scope---“Sub silentio”, a Latin term, literally translates to "under silence" or "in silence"---In legal milieus, it points towards an incidence where the Court decides a lis without appreciating or deliberating the particular point of law raised before it, which disturbs the precedential value of the judgment---Such doctrine often denotes that if the court, in its judgment, overlooked or dispensed with a crucial point of law raised before it, then the precedential value of such decision is seriously disturbed---Decision is not binding if it was reached at without argument, without reference to the critical terms of the law and without citation of authority and such a decision, taken as sub silentio, lacks authoritative weight. Syed Saad Ali and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry and others 2025 SCP 318 and Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675 rel. (d) Administration of justice--- ----Each case has to be decided on its own facts---Each litigant ought to be provided a fair chance of hearing to present and plead his case and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the merits of the case. (e) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Vires of law, rules or regulations can be challenged if its provisions are ex facie discriminatory, in which case actual proof of discriminatory treatment is not required to be shown, but there is also a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactments, unless it is ex facie violative of a constitutional provision. Lahore Development Authority v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others 2015 SCMR 1739 rel. Muhammad Haseeb Jamali, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Mohsin Qadir Shahwani, Additional Attorney General Pakistan and Agha Zafar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2025.

Summary: (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)- -S. 129(1)(a) [as amended by Finance Act, 2005]-Assessment order, setting aside of-Powers of Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals)-Remanding of matter-Scope-Authorities were aggrieved of remanding of matter by Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) in exercise of powers under Section 129(1)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Validity-Following the Finance Act, 2005, powers of Commissioner Appeals under section 129 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were confined to confirming, modifying, or annulling an assessment, with the express remand power deleted-Commissioner Appeals, under Section 129 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 post year-2005, lacked jurisdiction to remand for a fresh assessment and was bound to decide the matters-Supreme Court remanded the matter to Commissioner Appeals who was under an obligation to decide the case within the frame of Section 129(1)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as it then was-Powers to make further enquiries were available, instead of remanding the matter-Appeal was allowed. (b) Interpretation of statutes- -Fiscal statutes-Reading in, principle of-Scope-Intention of Legislature must be discovered from the words used-If words used are capable of one construction only, then it would not be open to Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction-If words of a statute or its any provision are readily understood without any ambiguity, then it is not for Court to raise any doubt as to what they mean for any contrary view, rather than implementing the same without any hesitation-Statute or any enacting provision must be so construed as to make it effectual and operational-Literal approach is to be adopted while interpreting fiscal or taxing statutes and Court cannot read into or impute something when provisions of a taxing statute are clear. Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited (IESCO) v. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (H.Q), Islamabad 2023 SCMR 1516 and Allied Bank Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore 2023 SCMR 1166 rel.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)- Muhammad Ali and others v. Ghulam Sarwar and others 1989 SCMR 640; Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 4 others v. Shalimar General Insurance, Company Limited and 2 others 1994 SCMR 22 and Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others PLD 2009 SC 760 rel.

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)- -S.16 (1)-Arrears of rent-Failure to deposit-Effect-If order under Section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is not complied with, defense of tenant is struck off, as a mandatory requirement of law. Ashiq Ali and another v. Mehar Elahi and 13 others 2001 SCMR 130 and Bashir Ahmed v. Messrs Roots School Network through Administrator/owner and others 2011 SCMR 290 rel. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)- Umar Gul v. Dr. Hafiza Akhtar and others 2025 SCMR 544; Syed Asghar Hussain v. Muhammad Owais and others 2018 SCMR 1720; Ashiq Ali and another v. Mehar Elahi and 13 others 2001 SCMR 130; Muhammad Iqbal Haider v. 1st ADJ, Karachi Central and others PLD 2018 SC 35; Bashir Ahmed v. Messrs Roots School Network through Administrator/owner and others 2011 SCMR 290; Mst. Mussarrat Shaheen v. Mst. Verbeena Khan Afroz and others 2024 SCMR 1796; Abdul Rasheed v. Maqbool Ahmed and others 2011 SCMR 320 and Muhammad Nisar v. Izhar Ahmed Shaikh and others PLD 2014 SC 347 ref.

Summary: (Against the order dated 21.11.2022 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in I.T.R. No. 71408 of 2022). (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S. 129(1)(a) [as amended by Finance Act, 2005]---Assessment order, setting aside of---Powers of Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals)---Remanding of matter---Scope---Authorities were aggrieved of remanding of matter by Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) in exercise of powers under Section 129(1)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Validity---Following the Finance Act, 2005, powers of Commissioner Appeals under section 129 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were confined to confirming, modifying, or annulling an assessment, with the express remand power deleted---Commissioner Appeals, under Section 129 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 post year-2005, lacked jurisdiction to remand for a fresh assessment and was bound to decide the matters---Supreme Court remanded the matter to Commissioner Appeals who was under an obligation to decide the case within the frame of Section 129(1)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as it then was---Powers to make further enquiries were available, instead of remanding the matter---Appeal was allowed. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Fiscal statutes---Reading in, principle of---Scope---Intention of Legislature must be discovered from the words used---If words used are capable of one construction only, then it would not be open to Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction---If words of a statute or its any provision are readily understood without any ambiguity, then it is not for Court to raise any doubt as to what they mean for any contrary view, rather than implementing the same without any hesitation---Statute or any enacting provision must be so construed as to make it effectual and operational---Literal approach is to be adopted while interpreting fiscal or taxing statutes and Court cannot read into or impute something when provisions of a taxing statute are clear. Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited (IESCO) v. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (H.Q), Islamabad 2023 SCMR 1516 and Allied Bank Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore 2023 SCMR 1166 rel. Ahmed Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court (Via Video-link from Lahore) and Arfat Rasool, Secretary Legal, FBR for Petitioner. Nemo for the Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st September, 2025. (b) in any other case, make such order as the Commissioner (Appeals) thinks fit. (a) in the case of an appeal against an assessment order – (i) make an order to set aside the assessment order and direct the Commissioner to make a new assessment order in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Commissioner (Appeals); or (i) He could set aside the assessment order and direct the Commissioner to make a new assessment order in accordance with his directions/recommendations. (i) Alternatively, he could confirm, modify, or annul the assessment order.

Summary: (Against the Judgment dated 08.04.2024 passed by the High Court of Balochistan at Quetta in Civil Revision No. 103 of 2023). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 47---Execution of decree---Distribution of share in property---Summoning of revenue record---Petitioners / judgment debtors were aggrieved of summoning of revenue record during execution of decree---Validity---No evidence was led by petitioners / judgment-debtors before Executing Court therefore, they could not set up a new case at the stage of execution---No such situation of nullity or in-executability of any severable part was demonstrated; instead, the Executing Court embarked upon a fresh inquiry into title on collateral revenue papers---Since the decree stood, therefore, execution must proceed to the extent of it recognizing respondent / decree holder’s entitlement in the estate of deceased and nothing more---High Court’s intervention merely restored such legal boundaries rather than reappraising the evidence which was already brought on record before Trial Court---Executing Court exceeded from its limit by calling for revenue record, and effectively sitting in appeal over the judgment and decree---In execution proceedings matters which had attained finality could not be re-opened or re-adjudicated---Judgment passed by High Court was well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and law---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court, as petitioners / judgment debtors failed to point out any illegality, perversity, or misreading and non-reading of evidence in judgment passed by High Court---High Court rightly set aside orders of Executing Court as well as Lower Appellate Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Ali and others v. Ghulam Sarwar and others 1989 SCMR 640; Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 4 others v. Shalimar General Insurance, Company Limited and 2 others 1994 SCMR 22 and Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others PLD 2009 SC 760 rel. Syed Najam-ud-Din Agha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. S. Mumtaz H. Baqri for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st September, 2025.