Summary: [Customs Act, 1969 (336) (2(s), 156(2), 157(2) and 178), Customs Act, 1969 (336) (SRO 499(I)/2009 issued under section 181 )] The proposition whether the events, as disclosed in the respective seizure reports of all three references followed by show cause notices and passing of Order-in-Originals, could be distinguished from the frame of SRO 499(I)/2009 as far as owners plea is concerned.Preamble (b) of the aforesaid SRO provides that the option shall not be given to pay fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of a vehicle which is defined as good/goods in terms of sub-clause (b) of the said preamble. Thus, a lawfully registered vehicle/conveyance, having packages andcontainers inside, found carrying smuggled goods, in false cavities or were being used exclusively or wholly for transportation of offended goods under clause (s) of Section 2 of Customs Act, 1969 becomes a subject matter of such offence. This clause (b) has emphasized that a vehicle or conveyance used exclusively or wholly for transportation of offended goods cannot be distinguished from the one having packages and containers inside as such conveyance having packages and containers are inclusive of such definition of vehicle/conveyance.

Summary: Declaration of assets in Local Government Elections

Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (G&W Section 25 allowed In Fever of Father Maintained by high Court as after death of his wife not remarried . )

Summary: Scope of Tribunals power under section 194A Customs Act, 1969.

Summary: Section 353/324/34 PPC--In compliance of short order, we have been informed that theSSP, East has already filed a report and replies to show cause noticesby police officials have also been filed. A separate order will be passed inthe proceedings under Section 27 of the ATA, 1997 after examiningreplies of show cause notices and hearing of the police officials/officersin accordance with law.

Summary: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (Limitation) --- The original suit by United Bank Limited aimed for recovery was dismissed due to being filed after the expiration of the statutory limitation period. The appeal challenged this dismissal, arguing that the applicable limitation period should be six years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, rather than three years, due to the presence of a hypothecation letter.The court considered various arguments and precedents, including the case of Allied Bank of Pakistan vs. Karsaz Corporation & Others and MCB Bank Limited vs. Messrs Tila Frontier Fruit Company & Others, to ascertain the correct limitation period. The judgment clarified that the mere presence of a letter of hypothecation does not extend the limitation period to six years for recovery suits related to running finance facilities, which remain subject to a three-year limitation.Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant failed to file an application for condonation of delay, which might have allowed the suit to be entertained despite being filed after the prescribed limitation period. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation laws and the necessity for courts to address the issue of limitation before proceeding with the merits of a case.In conclusion, the court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the original order, dismissing the suit as time-barred. The judgment underlines the critical nature of limitation periods in legal proceedings and the need for plaintiffs to adhere strictly to these timeframes to avoid dismissal of their suits.

Summary: After repeal of proviso to section 40B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the posting order passed thereunder by the Commissioner is not saved under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Summary: Pension funds and like trusts are entitled for exemption from Tax under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, without registration under the Sindh Trusts Act, 2020

Summary: -Definition of a person is provided under Ordinance, 2002, whichincludes an individual, partnership, association, company, trust orcorporation. Invariably in the show-cause/decision impugned, PEMRApresumed to have issued licenses to individual directors h

Summary: The court highlighted that preferential treatment, especially in commercial operations, should be based on reasonable and justifiable grounds and should not infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens. The court finds that the reasons presented by the respondents do not adequately justify the preferential treatment observed in the distribution of motor gasoline. The court concluded that the preferential treatment in the distribution of motor gasoline is not justifiable and that it is not based on any special status conferred by the law to respondent no. 4. The court also discussed the issue of peaceful protests and the importance of citizens' rights to assemble and protest. In conclusion, the court ruled against the preferential treatment of respondent no. 4 and directs the respondent no. 3 to take appropriate actions to rectify the discriminatory practices in its commercial operations.