Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908---- ----S. 115---Scope of revisional jurisdiction---Interference in concurrent findings---Two Courts below concurrently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs challenging revenue entries and claiming ownership of ancestral property. Held, revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C. is limited to instances of misreading, non-reading of evidence, or jurisdictional errors. Findings based on proper appraisal of evidence cannot be disturbed merely because another interpretation is possible. Referred cases: Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar (2022 SCMR 1054) Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLD 2022 SC 353) Muhammad Sarwar v. Hashmal Khan (PLD 2022 SC 13). (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---- ----Art. 117---Burden of proof---Plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of property through documentary evidence and relied solely on oral assertions. Held, burden of proof rests on the party seeking relief, and a case cannot be built on the weaknesses of the adversary's evidence. Referred cases: Nisar Ali v. Muhammad Asghar (2022 SCMR 1054) Qahaim Khan v. Amar Khan (2022 CLC 335). (c) Revenue Law---- ----Presumption of correctness of first-ever settlement record---Plaintiffs challenged entries made during the first-ever settlement of the area (1981–1986). Held, strong presumption of correctness attaches to first settlement records, and extraordinary evidence is required to dislodge such entries. Referred cases: Nawab Khan v. Said Karim Khan (1997 SCMR 1840) Mazloom Hussain v. Abid Hussain (PLD 2008 SC 571) Haji Allah Bakhsh v. Abdullah Khan (2001 SCMR 363). (d) Limitation Act, 1908---- ----Art. 120---Declaratory suits---Limitation period---Entries in revenue records made during the first settlement (1981–1986) were challenged in 1999, well beyond the six-year limitation period prescribed under Art. 120 of the Limitation Act. Held, plaintiffs’ suit was time-barred. Referred case: Khushi Muhammad v. Fazal Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 872). (e) Documentary vs. Oral Evidence---- ----Preference of documentary evidence---Revenue records indicated ownership by defendants, while plaintiffs relied on oral assertions. Held, documentary evidence recorded by public officials prevails over oral assertions. Referred cases: Shamshad v. Arif Ashraf Khan (2010 SCMR 473) Muhammad Rasheed v. Mst. Saeeda Bano (2014 CLC 990). (f) Judicial Findings---- ----Reliance on evidence---Judicial pronouncements must be based on evidence and reasoning. Courts cannot base decisions on assumptions or evidence beyond pleadings. Referred cases: Hyderabad Development Authority v. Abdul Majeed (PLD 2002 SC 84) Government of West Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad (PLD 1976 SC 469). -----Disposition: The revision petition was dismissed, and the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts were upheld.

Summary: (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---- ----S. 36 (now S. 11), S. 74, & S. 7---Adjudication period---Limitation and jurisdiction---Effect of delay in adjudication---Show-cause notice under S. 36 issued to Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO) resulted in adjudication exceeding statutory limits of 180 days (120 days + 60 days extension) without sufficient justification. Held, under Super Asia Muhammad Din and Sons v. Collector of Sales Tax (2017 SCMR 1427), such proceedings are void if adjudication exceeds time limits without lawful extension. However, WAK Ltd. Multan Road v. Collector Central Excise (2018 SCMR 1474) clarified that such time limitations are not mandatory but directory, aimed at expeditious disposal, not extinguishment of liability. Time extension granted under S. 74 must not exceed six months beyond statutory limits, per Super Asia Muhammad Din's case. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---- ----S. 7 & S. 8---Input tax adjustment---Taxable activities and losses---PESCO claimed input adjustment for transmission and distribution losses, including theft, contending these fall within taxable activities. Held, losses incurred during distribution are natural and inevitable; therefore, input adjustment is permissible as such losses are part of taxable activities. Reliance placed on Mayfair Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Secretary Revenue Division (PTCL 2002 CL 115) and Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (2023 SCMR 279). (c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---- ----S. 3 & S. 7---Supplies to erstwhile tribal areas---Non-applicability of charging and machinery provisions---At the relevant time, the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was not extended to Federally and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (FATA/PATA). Held, as per M/s. Gul Cooking Oil v. Collector of Customs (2008 PTD 169) and Hazrat Hussain v. Pakistan through Chairman FBR (2018 SCMR 939), supplies to FATA/PATA were exempt, and input tax adjustment could not be claimed for such supplies. (d) Tax Administration---- ----Judicial consistency---Consolidated judgment disposing of multiple sales tax references involving common questions of law and facts to ensure uniformity in legal interpretation and application. -----Cited Cases: Super Asia Muhammad Din and Sons v. Collector of Sales Tax (2017 SCMR 1427) WAK Ltd. Multan Road v. Collector Central Excise (2018 SCMR 1474) Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (2023 SCMR 279) Mayfair Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Secretary Revenue Division (PTCL 2002 CL 115) Hazrat Hussain v. Pakistan through Chairman FBR (2018 SCMR 939) -----Disposition: References answered in terms of findings. Input adjustment allowed for transmission losses; disallowed for supplies to exempt areas.

Summary: (a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000): ----Scope and powers of NADRA—Blocking of CNIC—Determination of citizenship status—Jurisdictional limits. The National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) lacks jurisdiction to determine the citizenship status of individuals or to block their Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) based on reports from intelligence agencies. The power to adjudicate citizenship disputes is exclusively vested in the competent authority under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and the rules framed thereunder. Blocking or suspending a CNIC effectively amounts to suspending an individual's citizenship, which NADRA has no authority to do under the NADRA Ordinance, 2000. ----Cited Cases: Hafiz Hamad Ullah Sabbor v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Islamabad 305) (b) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951): ----Determination of citizenship—Exclusive jurisdiction of competent authority—Illegality of NADRA’s actions. Under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, citizenship status can only be determined by the competent authority designated under the Act. NADRA, being an administrative body, cannot usurp this function or make citizenship determinations based on reports from intelligence agencies. Any such action is ultra vires of NADRA’s authority and constitutes a violation of the statutory framework governing citizenship rights. ----Cited Cases: Hafiz Hamad Ullah Sabbor v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Islamabad 305) (c) Constitutional Rights: ----Fundamental rights—Right to citizenship—Unlawful blocking of CNIC. Blocking or suspending a CNIC without lawful authority infringes upon fundamental rights, including the right to identity, property ownership, and access to essential services. Such an act by NADRA constitutes an overreach of its statutory powers and is in violation of constitutional protections afforded to citizens. ----Cited Law: Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (d) Administrative Law: ----Jurisdictional limits of NADRA—Intelligence agency reports—No evidentiary value without determination by competent authority. Reports from intelligence agencies, without adjudication by the competent authority under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, do not hold legal weight in determining citizenship status. NADRA cannot rely solely on such reports to block or suspend CNICs. ----Cited Cases: Hafiz Hamad Ullah Sabbor v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Islamabad 305) ----(e) Relief: ----Unblocking of CNIC—Direction to NADRA. NADRA was directed to immediately unblock the CNICs of the petitioners, as its actions were deemed illegal, ultra vires, and beyond its statutory mandate. ----(f) Disposition The writ petition was allowed, and NADRA was directed to unblock the CNICs of the petitioners forthwith.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969 – Sections 2(s), 16, 168, and 171: Seizure of Goods – Limitation for Issuance of Show-Cause Notice – Time-Barred Proceedings Appeal challenging the legality of proceedings initiated under the Customs Act, 1969, following the seizure of goods (foreign-origin cooking oil and ghee) on allegations of smuggling. The appellant contended that the show-cause notice was served beyond the time prescribed under Section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, rendering the proceedings illegal. Held: Section 168(2) mandates that a show-cause notice must be issued within two months of the seizure, extendable by an additional two months for reasons recorded in writing. In the present case, the notice was issued after nearly ten months, exceeding the permissible time limit. Consequently, the show-cause notice and all subsequent proceedings were declared void ab initio. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. ----Cited Cases: Assistant Director Intelligence and Investigation v. M/s B.R Herman PLD 1992 SC 485 M/s. Skindar A. Kharim v. The State 1995 SCMR 387 PLD 1974 SC (sic) PLD 1988 Lahore 177 1991 SCMR 1753 ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. The proceedings and impugned order were quashed as being time-barred under the Customs Act, 1969.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The appellants filed four election appeals challenging the rejection of their nomination papers by the Returning Officers for NA-59 and PP-23 constituencies in Talagang. The appellants submitted their nomination papers to contest the general elections, but the Returning Officers rejected them, citing various discrepancies in their declarations and nomination papers. The appellants challenged the rejection orders, arguing that the decisions were based on misinterpretations of law and that the omissions were minor and should not affect their candidacy. -----Issues: 1- Whether the non-attestation of affidavits and declarations in the nomination papers justifies the rejection of the nomination papers. ----2- Whether failure to open separate bank accounts for each constituency is a valid ground for rejecting the nomination papers. ----3- Whether the concealment of assets, including land, shares in a business, bank balances, and weapons, constitutes material misrepresentation. ----4- Whether the discrepancies in tax returns and omission of travel expenses affect the validity of the nomination papers. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Non-attestation of Affidavits: The court held that the affidavits and declarations attached to the nomination papers were not properly attested by the Oath Commissioner, as required by the Elections Act, 2017. This procedural defect is mandatory and substantial, justifying the rejection of the nomination papers. --Failure to Open Separate Accounts: The court noted that the appellants failed to open separate bank accounts for each constituency, which is a requirement under the Elections Act, 2017. The purpose of this provision is to monitor election expenses and prevent overspending. The failure to comply with this requirement was deemed a valid reason for rejection. --Concealment of Assets: The court found that both appellants concealed material information in their nomination papers, including ownership of 10 Marla land, shares in a private company, bank balances, and licensed weapons. The court rejected the argument that these omissions were minor, particularly noting the political experience of one of the appellants. The omissions were deemed material misrepresentations, justifying the rejection. --Discrepancies in Tax Returns and Travel Expenses: The court noted significant discrepancies in the tax returns of one of the appellants, particularly regarding travel expenses. The appellant failed to mention her foreign trips in the tax returns, despite declaring the expenses in her nomination papers. The court held that this omission was serious and material, affecting the validity of the nomination papers. The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Returning Officers' decisions to reject the nomination papers due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Elections Act, 2017. -----Citations/Precedents: Habib Akram v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2018 Lahore 641) Speaker, National Assembly of Pakistan v. Habib Akram (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 678) Nadeem Sultan v. Hamza Shamim (PLD 2023 Lahore 334)