Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Appeal--- ----Scope---Appeal is a creature of a statute and has to be specifically conferred as a right and unless it is so confirmed, the right of appeal cannot be presumed. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 127, 161 & 205---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3 (2) & (3), proviso---Intracourt appeal---Maintainability---Word "proceedings"---Scope---Notices under Ss.161 & 205 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, were issued by authorities and assessees assailed the same before High Court under Constitutional jurisdiction---Single Judge of High Court dismissed petition filed by assessees---Validity---Proceedings commenced with the first step by which machinery of law was put into motion in order to take cognizance of the case and included every step taken towards further progress of a cause in Court or before a Tribunal, where it was pending--- "Proceedings" was a comprehensive expression and included all possible steps in action under law from its commencement to execution of judgment---Applying such test, Division Bench of High Court concluded that notices assailed before Single Judge of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, were a step in proceedings and law applicable provided for an appeal against original order, therefore, intra-court appeal under S. 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, was not competent---Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Regional Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. M. Yousaf Academy Quick Fill C.N.G. and others PLD 2006 SC 787; Iftikhar Hussain and others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLJ 1996 Lah. 82; 1990 PTD 155; Muhammad Aslam Sukhera and others v. Collector Land Acquisition, Lahore, Improvement Trust, Lahore and another PLD 2005 SC 45; Deputy Commissioner/Administrator, District Council, Attock and another v. Lawrencepur Woollen Textile Mills Ltd. 1999 SCMR 1357; Vice Chancellor/Chairman Admission Board University of Health Science, Lahore v. Breeha Zainab and another 2011 MLD 1652; Lahore Development Authority through its Director General, Lahore and another v. Commissioner Lahore Division Lahore and another 2009 CLC 86 and PLD 1984 SC 344 ref. (c) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)--- ----S. 3 (2) & (3) proviso---Object, scope and purpose---High Court by using the tool of purposive interpretation, stated the reasons for limiting the sweep of appeals to arise from petitions under Art. 199 of the Constitution. Following are the reasons for limiting the sweep of appeals to arise from petitions under Art.199 of the constitution: (i) Interlocutory proceedings / actions should not be allowed to be challenged as a normal course. It increases burden on judicial resources. (ii) Constitutional jurisdiction should be used sparingly and not as a matter of routine and the scope of appeal arising therefrom must also be confined by parameters. (iii) Matters should be permitted to be dealt with by statutory forums and ought not to be short circuited or circumvented by collateral attacks. This would defeat the intention of legislature. (iv) A person cannot be conferred benefit of two appeals during the course of same proceedings; one arising out of original order and the other arising out of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. ----Background: The appellant, Messrs Nishat (Chunian) Ltd., challenged the issuance of show-cause notices by the FBR under Sections 161 and 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, through a writ petition in the Lahore High Court. A single bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, which led the appellant to file an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. ----Issues: 1) Maintainability of the Intra-Court Appeal (ICA): Whether the ICA was maintainable under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, in light of the existence of a statutory right of appeal under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. ---2) Validity of Show-Cause Notices: Whether the FBR’s issuance of show-cause notices under Sections 161 and 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was lawful and within its jurisdiction. ---Court's Holding: Maintainability: The court ruled that the ICA was not maintainable. It reasoned that under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, no appeal can be filed if the law applicable to the proceedings provides for at least one appeal, revision, or review. Since Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, provides an appeal mechanism to the Commissioner (Appeals) against orders made under Sections 161 and 205, the appellant had an adequate statutory remedy. As a result, the Intra-Court Appeal was barred. Proceedings: The court further elaborated on the term "proceedings" and determined that the show-cause notices issued by the FBR were a step in the legal proceedings that would culminate in an original order, against which an appeal could be made to the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the ICA could not be entertained under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. -----Outcome: The ICA was dismissed as not maintainable. -----Legal Precedents Cited: Regional Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. M. Yousaf Academy Quick Fill C.N.G. and others (PLD 2006 SC 787) Iftikhar Hussain and others v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLJ 1996 Lahore 82) Muhammad Aslam Sukhera and others v. Collector Land Acquisition, Lahore (PLD 2005 SC 45) Deputy Commissioner/Administrator, District Council, Attock and another v. Lawrencepur Woollen Textile Mills Ltd. (1999 SCMR 1357)

Summary: Background: This case involved several intra-court appeals filed by various companies, including M/s Nishat (Chunian) Ltd., under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The appeals were against a consolidated order passed by a single judge of the Lahore High Court on 5th June 2014, regarding the issuance of show-cause notices by the FBR under Sections 161 and 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The appellants challenged the maintainability of these show-cause notices and sought the quashment of the FBR's actions. ----Issues: 1) Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeals: Whether the intra-court appeals were maintainable in light of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, considering the availability of an appeal, revision, or review mechanism under the applicable tax laws. ----2) Validity of Show-Cause Notices: Whether the show-cause notices issued by the FBR under Sections 161 and 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, were lawful and within the FBR's jurisdiction. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Maintainability: The court held that the appeals were not maintainable. Under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, intra-court appeals are barred if the original proceedings under challenge provide for at least one appeal, revision, or review. The court found that Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, provided a remedy for appealing against the show-cause notices issued by the FBR. The appeals before the High Court arose from proceedings that would culminate in an original order subject to appeal, making the intra-court appeals barred by law. Substantive Issue: The court did not address the merits of the show-cause notices or the legality of the FBR's actions, as the appeals were dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Outcome: The appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, and the appellants were directed to pursue the remedy available under Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Aslam Sukhera v. Collector Land Acquisition, Lahore (PLD 2005 SC 45) Deputy Commissioner, Attock v. Lawrencepur Woollen Textile Mills (1999 SCMR 1357) Vice Chancellor, University of Health Sciences v. Breeha Zainab (PLJ 2011 Lahore 811) Mst. Karim Bibi v. Hussain Bukhsh (PLD 1984 SC 344) Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1985 SC 107)

Summary: S.394,324,336,337-D PPC,13 AOOverwhelming evidence,day light occurrence(Appeal dismissed) --- The appellant, Zarif Khan, challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hangu, where he was convicted and sentenced for various offenses, including Sections 394 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code, Section 324, Section 336, Section 337-D, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. --- The court analyzed the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant, specifically whether the appeal should be filed before the Federal Shariat Court. The court referred to a precedent, "Attaullah Versus Abdur Razaq and another," and concluded that since the appellant had been convicted under the general law (Pakistan Penal Code) and not under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, the appeal was properly filed before the Peshawar High Court.The judgment ultimately upheld the conviction and sentences, except for Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, where the appellant was acquitted. The document concludes with the dismissal of the appeal and the maintenance of the conviction and sentences, with a focus on legal analysis related to jurisdiction and criminal charges.

Summary: S.53,172 LRA,S.115 CPC:Correction of entry in record of right--jurisdiction of civil courts

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan.Presumption of truth ...Court of law are bound to dealt with the matter rightly and not wrongly.

Summary: The main issue in these references pertains to the blacklisting of supplier units and the claim of input tax credit against invoices issued by those supplier units. Whether the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) was justified in passing an order in violation of Rule 12(5) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, which states that "during the period of suspension of registration, the invoices issued by such person shall not be entertained for the purposes of sales tax refund or input tax credit." In both cases, the respondent taxpayers were issued show cause notices for adjusting input tax/refund of sales tax against invoices issued by blacklisted units, which the tax authorities deemed inadmissible. The tax authorities required the taxpayers to explain why the inadmissible input tax should not be recovered along with default surcharge and penalty. The judgment also mentioned that the suppliers in question had been blacklisted due to their involvement in fraudulent activities related to sales tax, including issuing fake invoices. The applicant department argues that the scheme of self-assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is based on the presumption that the information provided by taxpayers in their returns is trustworthy. However, some delinquent taxpayers misuse their registration numbers and engage in fraudulent transactions based on fake invoices. Therefore, the department blacklisted and suspended such suppliers, which, under Rule 12(5), resulted in the inadmissibility of invoices issued by these suppliers for input tax claims by purchasers. The respondent taxpayers argued that under the Sales Tax Act, the liability to pay tax is primarily on the suppliers of goods, and buyers are only obligated to check whether the supplier is registered with the tax department at the time of the transaction. They contend that it is not the responsibility of the purchaser to verify the legality of the supplier's registration. It examined sections 3(3), 6, 7, 8, and 11 of the Act, as well as Rule 12(5). The judgment emphasizes that the liability to pay tax is on the supplier, and section 8(1)(d) of the Act makes it clear that input tax paid on fake invoices is not admissible for deduction. However, if input tax adjustment has already been made based on valid invoices and is subsequently found to be associated with fake invoices, the recourse is not to reject the input tax claim but to invoke section 11(2) for recovery. The judgment also discussed the burden of proof in cases of tax fraud, both on the civil and criminal sides. It clarifies that on the civil side, the burden lies with the department to show that the registered person knowingly, dishonestly, or fraudulently caused falsification of sales tax invoices or committed tax fraud. The Tribunal found that the allegations of tax fraud and fake invoices were baseless and not supported by the evidence. Therefore, the charge of tax fraud had no legal consequence. The Tribunal also ruled that subsequent blacklisting should not disentitle the purchaser from claiming input tax in respect of invoices issued when the supplier was registered and active. Ultimately, the judgment answers the common questions of law in the affirmative, deciding the reference applications against the applicant department.

Summary: PLJ 2015 Peshawar 30 (DB) Present Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel CJ and Malik Manzoor Hussain J MUHAMMAD SAREER KHAN and 10 others - - Petitioners versus ARBAB SULTAN MUHAMMAD and 6 others - - Respondents WP No 2527 of 2010 with IR with CM No 273 - P of 2014 decided of 15102014 Specific Relief Act 1877 (I of 1877) - - - - - - S 9 - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art 199 - - Constitutional petition - - Legality and propriety of judgment was challenged - - Suit for restoration of possession - - Change of entry was challenged - - No entitled to interfere in possession without due course of law - - Forcible possession under garb of mutation - - Validity - - It is well settled by now that a co - sharer in exclusive possession of joint partion of property for a long period cannot be dispossessed by another co - sharer except for bringing a suit for partition - - Possession of respondent was supported by long standing entries and it has been noticed by High Court that vendor of petitioners were not in possession of property when they transferred same in favour of petitioners rather they admitted such fact in their written statement as well in Court statements - - If petitioners were interested in possession of land they were bound to seek remedy before Court of competent jurisdiction on basis of sale deed - - No one else including other co - owners had any right to dispossess respondents by show of force - - High Court could not constitute itself as a Court of appeal for purpose of examining factual controversy which had already been adjudicated upon by two competent Courts below [Pp 32 33] A B C Mr Ghulam Mohyuddin Malik Advocate for Petitioners Mr Shahbaz Khan Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition dismissed