Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Proceedings arising out of ejectment petition filed under Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. Jurisdiction of review is not vested by law in the Rent Controller or Appellate Court in rent matters and the same cannot be conferred even by consent of the parties.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art. 212(3) --- Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 --- Federal Service Tribunal --- Scope of interference in disciplinary matters --- Respondent, a Skilled Trade Man (MT Fitter) serving with Pakistan Air Force, was dismissed from service on 30.08.2021 after departmental inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, on allegations of immoral activities within and outside PAF Camp Badaber, maintaining objectionable associations and bringing disrepute to the organization; departmental appeal was dismissed on 14.10.2021 --- Tribunal accepted his appeal, set aside the penalty of dismissal and granted consequential benefits, principally observing that the allegations were vague, that some incidents related to a period prior to regular appointment, and that no documentary evidence had been produced to conclusively establish misconduct during service --- Held, that where departmental proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law and findings are supported by material available on the record, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the penalty in an arbitrary manner or substitute its own conclusions merely because another view may be possible --- Departmental proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings, and once due process requirements have been satisfied, the Tribunal cannot act as an appellate forum for reassessment of evidence --- Inquiry in the present case was conducted strictly in accordance with law: respondent was served with a charge-sheet, submitted a reply, participated in the inquiry, was informed of his rights under the Rules, was afforded opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, was served with a show-cause notice and was granted personal hearing before the competent authority --- No violation of any mandatory provision of law was pointed out --- Tribunal exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction by reassessing the evidentiary worth of the material and substituting its own conclusions for those lawfully reached by the disciplinary authority. (b) Departmental inquiry --- Unchallenged testimony --- Effect of declining cross-examination --- Respondent was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses but consciously elected not to do so, with the result that their testimony remained substantially unrebutted --- Held, that where a witness is not cross-examined on a material part of his testimony, such unchallenged statement ordinarily deserves to be accepted as true unless displaced by reliable evidence --- Where testimony remains unchallenged in cross-examination, the same may legitimately be treated as admitted --- Evidence which remains unrebutted and uncontroverted due to absence of cross-examination carries full evidentiary value and may safely be relied upon by the adjudicating forum --- Witnesses having been examined in the presence of the respondent, who declined to cross-examine them, their statements constituted relevant and reliable material before the Inquiry Committee. (c) Departmental inquiry --- Confession and admissions --- Proof of misconduct --- Absence of documentary evidence --- Respondent made a detailed signed statement before the Inquiry Committee on 04.08.2020, specifically recording that it was made voluntarily and without pressure or duress, admitting involvement in immoral and illicit activities; the confession was never retracted, and he thereafter admitted misconduct during personal hearing and sought pardon --- Held, that such admissions constituted substantive evidence and furnished an independent basis for the competent authority to conclude that the respondent had rendered himself unsuitable for retention in service --- Findings of the Inquiry Committee were supported by (i) oral testimony of several witnesses which remained unrebutted; (ii) the respondent's own voluntary confession; and (iii) his subsequent admissions before the competent authority --- Such material clearly satisfied the requirement of "some evidence" necessary to sustain departmental findings --- Tribunal erred in treating the absence of documentary evidence as fatal; misconduct of the present nature is ordinarily established through oral testimony, admissions, surrounding circumstances and conduct of the delinquent employee, and the law does not require documentary proof of every allegation in disciplinary proceedings --- Tribunal also attached undue significance to the fact that some incidents referred to a period prior to the respondent's regularization; the inquiry record contained material relating to conduct continuing during service --- Findings of the Inquiry Committee, accepted by the competent authority, were supported by ample material and could not be characterized as arbitrary, capricious, perverse or based on no evidence. Cited Cases: • Director General, Directorate General of Training and Research (Inland Revenue), Lahore v. Ijaz Younas 2021 SCMR 710 • Saboor Khan v. Chairman WAPDA 2021 SCMR 667 • Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through Legal Representatives v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi 1991 SCMR 2300 • Sheraz Tufail v. The State 2007 SCMR 518 • Ishfaq Ahmed v. Mushtaq Ahmed PLD 2025 Supreme Court 582 Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; judgment dated 22.10.2024 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp Office, Peshawar, in Appeal No.456(P)CS/2021 set aside; order dated 30.08.2021 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent, as maintained in departmental appeal vide order dated 14.10.2021, restored. (C.P. No.5857 of 2024, Supreme Court of Pakistan, judgment by Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J. (Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J. on the Bench), announced in open Court on 19 June 2026 at Islamabad; Approved for reporting.)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.212(3)---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Departmental proceedings---Scope of interference by Federal Service Tribunal---Where inquiry had been conducted in accordance with law, adequate opportunity of defence had been afforded and findings were supported by material available on record, Tribunal could not arbitrarily interfere with penalty or substitute its own conclusions merely because another view of evidence was possible---Departmental proceedings were distinct from criminal proceedings and Tribunal was not to act as an appellate forum for fresh reassessment of evidence after requirements of due process had been satisfied. Cited Cases: • Director General, Directorate General of Training and Research (Inland Revenue), Lahore v. Ijaz Younas 2021 SCMR 710 • Saboor Khan v. Chairman WAPDA 2021 SCMR 667 (b) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Departmental inquiry---Due process---Respondent was served with charge-sheet and statement of allegations, submitted written reply, participated throughout inquiry, was informed of rights available under Rules, was afforded opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses, received show-cause notice and was granted personal hearing before competent authority---No violation of any mandatory legal provision or denial of reasonable opportunity of defence was established---Inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with law. (c) Evidence---Cross-examination---Departmental witnesses not challenged---Evidentiary effect---Where witness was not cross-examined on material portion of testimony, such statement ordinarily deserved acceptance as true unless displaced by reliable contrary evidence---Respondent was expressly afforded opportunity to cross-examine all departmental witnesses but consciously declined to avail it---Testimony concerning harassment, blackmail, indecent photographs, objectionable associations and immoral conduct therefore remained unrebutted and could legitimately be relied upon by Inquiry Committee. Cited Cases: • Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through Legal Representatives v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi 1991 SCMR 2300 • Sheraz Tufail v. The State 2007 SCMR 518 • Ishfaq Ahmed v. Mushtaq Ahmed and others PLD 2025 SC 582 (d) Departmental proceedings---Voluntary confession by delinquent employee---Evidentiary value---Respondent made detailed signed statement before Inquiry Committee after being informed of his rights, expressly declaring that it was made willingly and without pressure or duress---He admitted involvement in immoral and illicit activities and furnished particulars thereof---Confession was never retracted during inquiry nor was coercion, threat, inducement or mala fide alleged before competent authority---Respondent subsequently admitted misconduct during personal hearing and sought pardon---Such admissions constituted substantive evidence and independently supported conclusion that respondent had rendered himself unsuitable for retention in service. (e) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Departmental misconduct---Standard of proof---“Some evidence” rule---Findings of Inquiry Committee were supported by oral testimony of several witnesses, voluntary confession of respondent and subsequent admissions before competent authority---Such material satisfied requirement of “some evidence” necessary to sustain departmental findings---Findings could not be characterized as arbitrary, capricious, perverse or based on no evidence. (f) Departmental inquiry---Misconduct of immoral nature---Absence of documentary evidence---Effect---Tribunal erred in treating want of documentary evidence as fatal---Misconduct involving personal conduct, objectionable associations, harassment and immoral activities could be proved through oral testimony, admissions, surrounding circumstances and conduct of delinquent employee---Law did not require documentary proof of every allegation in disciplinary proceedings. (g) Civil service---Conduct before regularization and during service---Relevance---Tribunal attached undue significance to fact that some incidents related to period before respondent’s regular appointment---Inquiry record also contained material showing continuation of objectionable conduct during service---Earlier incidents, when forming part of continuing pattern of misconduct extending into service, could not be discarded merely because some conduct preceded regularization. (h) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.212(3)---Federal Service Tribunal---Reappraisal of departmental evidence---Jurisdictional limits---Tribunal failed to appreciate unrebutted witness testimony, voluntary confession and subsequent admissions and substituted its own assessment for conclusions of disciplinary authority---Such reassessment exceeded lawful limits of Tribunal’s jurisdiction where inquiry was fair and findings were supported by ample material. Disposition---Petition for leave to appeal converted into appeal and allowed---Judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed by Federal Service Tribunal set aside---Order dated 30.08.2021 imposing major penalty of dismissal from service, as maintained in departmental appeal on 14.10.2021, restored. Additional Director Civilian Personnel, Air Headquarters, Peshawar and others v. Muzafar Masih, Civil Petition No.5857 of 2024, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard on 21.05.2026 and announced on 19.06.2026, approved for reporting.

Summary: Licence is needed only if the police judge the procession a threat to peace.

Summary: 1. Maintaining daily case diaries is a strict statutory obligation. Unexplained gaps in documentation and failing to initiate proper absconder proceedings shatter the presumption of a prompt and fair investigation. Furthermore, mechanically freezing cross-version proceedings is patently lopsided and frustrates the investigating officer's fundamental duty to neutrally discover the actual facts. 2. Investigations must conclude within the statutory fourteen days. Inordinate delays fundamentally violate the constitutional right to a fair trial. Burying police files for years exposes a shocking systemic paralysis, reflecting a total breakdown of internal police supervision and a lack of external judicial oversight by the Magistrate. 3. Supervisory police authorities are directed to meticulously audit their jurisdictions to identify and immediately rectify any ongoing investigative delays. Proactive steps are mandated to enforce statutory timelines, daily diary maintenance, and consolidated cross-version investigations. A comprehensive compliance report regarding these corrective measures must be submitted to the High Court within thirty days. 4. Post-arrest bail is safely granted where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., making "bail, not jail" the governing rule and refusal an exception. This applies with greater force when an unexplained seven-day delay in lodging the FIR points toward prior deliberation and consultation, the investigation is complete and no exceptional circumstances exist to justify treating the case as an exception.

Summary: (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)----Ss. 7 & 8(1)(b)---"Stock in trade"---Plant and machinery---Industrial generator installed to generate energy for manufacture of taxable supplies---Larger Bench---Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1999 PTD 1892) reconsidered---Respondent imported a Caterpillar diesel generator of 1150 KVA (Bill of Entry No.53371) for installation as plant and machinery to generate energy for manufacture of taxable supplies (cement) and paid sales tax of Rs.1.020 million at the import stage---Peshawar High Court, placing reliance on Attock Cement, treated the generator as stock in trade---Held, that the term "stock in trade" was not defined in the Sales Tax Act, 1990 or the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, and could not be defined in definitive terms merely by referring to ordinary dictionaries without reference to context and the relevant law---Stock in trade was a commercial term interchangeable with inventory (goods or supplies on hand or in transit; for a manufacturer, raw materials, work in progress and finished goods) and formed part of circulating capital, whereas plant and machinery were fixed capital, being industrial apparatus used in carrying on the business---Functional test was whether the subject-matter was the apparatus, or part of the apparatus, employed in carrying on the activities of the business; if generators and generating sets were installed and used by a business they were plant and machinery and not stock in trade unless the company was in the business of trading generators---Generator imported for installation as plant and machinery to generate power for manufacture of cement, and not for sale in the market, was a capital/fixed asset and could not be termed stock in trade---Conclusion in Attock Cement that "plant and machinery would be construed as stock in trade" was based on over-extension of general dictionary meanings, erroneously conflating industrial apparatus with circulating capital, was legally incorrect and required reconsideration, and was declared erroneous in law and facts---Reliance of Peshawar High Court on Attock Cement while treating the generator, admittedly installed to generate energy for use in manufacture of taxable supplies, as stock in trade was misplaced and contrary to law. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)----S. 8(1)(b)---S.R.O. 578(I)/1998 dated 12.06.1998, Serial No.6, as substituted by S.R.O. 677(I)/2000 dated 28.09.2000---Input tax adjustment---Generators and generating sets of 250 KVA or above acquired by a registered manufacturer for use in manufacture of taxable supplies---Federal Government under S. 8(1)(b) was authorised to specify goods acquired otherwise than as stock in trade in respect of which input tax shall not be claimed---Serial No.6 of S.R.O. 578(I)/1998 included generators and generating sets among goods in respect of which input tax could not be claimed, but excluded generators and generating sets of 250 KVA or above acquired by a registered manufacturer for use in manufacture of taxable supplies---Generators of 250 KVA or above so acquired, including the 1150 KVA generator imported by the respondent, were not included in the goods in respect of which input tax could not be claimed---Having held that the generator could not be termed stock in trade, the Court held that input tax adjustment of Rs.1.020 million paid as sales tax at the import stage against output tax was available to the respondent. (c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)----S. 8(1)(b)---S.R.O. 677(I)/2000 dated 28.09.2000---Amending notification conferring benefit---Retrospective operation---Curative and clarificatory nature---Tax Authorities and Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had treated S.R.O. 677(I)/2000 as prospective and denied refund/input adjustment of sales tax paid on 15.12.1999---Held, that a notification or amendment under S. 8(1)(b) which expands eligibility or eliminates an exclusion from claiming input tax adjustment amounts to restoring a substantive right of a registered person and is treated as remedial and curative, hence applies retrospectively to pending cases---Notification which confers benefit can operate retrospectively, whereas one which purports to impair an existing or vested right or imposes a new liability cannot operate retrospectively in the absence of legal sanction---Respondent's claim, asserted from inception even before issuance of the amending SRO and pursued through carry-forward, refund application, reference and the instant appeal, could not be treated as a past and closed transaction but as pending proceedings---Amending S.R.O. 677(I)/2000, which conferred benefit on importers of generators of 250 KVA and above installed to generate energy for manufacture of taxable supplies by differentiating industrial generators from ordinary generators, was curative and clarificatory, was to be given retrospective effect, and its benefit was extended to imports made by the respondent---Findings of the Tax Authorities and the Tribunal declaring the amendment prospective were erroneous in law and facts. Cited Cases: • Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, Quetta and others 1999 PTD 1892 • Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647 • Benson v. The Yard Arm Club Ltd. 53 TC 67 • Golden Horse Shoe (New) Ltd. v. Thurgood [1934] 1 KB 548 • Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal (1955 AIR 89) • John Smith v. Moore [1921] 12 TC 266 • Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652 • Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shahnawaz Ltd. and others 1993 SCMR 73 • Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited (2014) 367 ITR 446 SC Disposition: Civil Appeal partially allowed; finding in Attock Cement that plant and machinery would be construed as stock in trade declared erroneous in law and facts; reliance of Peshawar High Court thereon while treating the generator as stock in trade held misplaced; amending S.R.O. 677(I)/2000 dated 28.09.2000 declared curative and clarificatory and given retrospective effect, with benefit extended to the respondent's imports. (C.A. No.1227 of 2014, against judgment dated 23.01.2014 of Peshawar High Court in Sales Tax Reference No.114 of 2006, Supreme Court of Pakistan, larger Bench, judgment of Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J., heard 20.02.2026; Approved for Reporting)

Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 32(3) [as it stood in 1999]---Show-cause notice---Limitation---Misconstruction or erroneous interpretation of law distinguished from fraud---Supplies of High Speed Diesel Oil to Pakistan Naval Ships---Petitioner supplied High Speed Diesel Oil to Pakistan Naval Ships against shipping bills without payment of customs duty and other levies on the understanding that such supplies were exempt under S. 106 of the Act, in accordance with a long-standing departmental practice and under supervision of the Customs authorities---Show Cause Notice dated 26.06.2002 alleged supply of bonded warehoused POL products to Pakistan Navy without payment of customs duty, development surcharge and other taxes, and demanded duties and taxes amounting to Rs.257,000---Demand was confirmed by Order-in-Original dated 30.09.2002; appeal before the Customs Appellate Tribunal was dismissed; High Court dismissed the reference application---High Court had admitted the reference on four questions of law, including whether the Show Cause Notice was time-barred as being issued beyond the prescribed period of six months under S. 32(3), but declined to examine that question independently, holding that the matter already stood concluded by Collector of Customs E & S.T. v. Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. (2005 SCMR 1636) and Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, E & ST (2006 SCMR 425)---Held, that limitation of a show-cause notice, and whether the accusation fell under S. 32(1) and (2) or under S. 32(3), was neither addressed in 2005 SCMR 1636 nor in the later review judgment 2006 SCMR 425, in which the Court had regretted an answer on the count that the accusation was a question of fact requiring inquiry---Those judgments were not relevant, as the question of accusation falling under S. 32(3) was not decided therein---High Court misconstrued the real controversy by relying upon the said cases, which had dealt with merits, whereas the present case was restricted to limitation of the show-cause notice. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 32(3) & 106---Show-cause notice founded on alleged misconstruction of exemption---Absence of allegation of fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement---Period of six months---Transaction dated 11.11.1999---Notice dated 26.06.2002---Held, that the controversy was essentially one of characterisation---A careful reading of the Show Cause Notice revealed that the entire allegation was founded upon an alleged erroneous understanding of S. 106 concerning supplies to Pakistan Naval Ships---No allegation of collusion, fraud, deliberate concealment, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, falsification of documents or any other species of fraudulent conduct was levelled---Transactions were undertaken openly through shipping bills registered by Customs authorities and under a procedure followed for decades---Adjudicating authority did not attribute mala fides and no penal consequences were imposed---Case proceeded entirely on the premise that the petitioner had misconstrued the legal effect of S. 106, and therefore squarely fell within S. 32(3) as it then stood, which governed cases of misconstruction or erroneous interpretation of law---In the year 1999, when the transaction took place, the prescribed period for issuance of show-cause notice under S. 32(3) was six months, completed on 10.05.2000---Amendment substituting "six months" with "three years" was brought later in the year 2000---Notice was issued more than two and a half years after the transaction sought to be reopened---Where a statute prescribes a specific period within which fiscal proceedings may be initiated, the revenue authorities are bound by such limitation---Limitation provisions contained in taxing statutes are not mere matters of procedure; they confer substantive protection against reopening concluded transactions after expiry of the prescribed period---Where the legislature has distinguished between cases involving fraud and those involving mere misconstruction of law, the revenue authorities cannot circumvent limitation by labelling a case of legal interpretation as one attracting the more stringent provisions reserved for fraudulent conduct---Show Cause Notice dated 26.06.2002, issued after expiry of the prescribed six months, was barred by limitation and incapable of creating any lawful liability---Once the Show Cause Notice was found time-barred, all proceedings founded thereon, including the Order-in-Original, the order of the Customs Appellate Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court, became unsustainable---Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi v. Pakistan State Oil Karachi (2011 SCMR 1279) ref. Cited Cases: • Collector of Customs E & S.T. and Sales Tax v. Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. 2005 SCMR 1636 • Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, E & ST (Adjudication-II) and others 2006 SCMR 425 • Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi v. Pakistan State Oil Karachi 2011 SCMR 1279 Disposition: Civil petition converted into an appeal and allowed; impugned judgment dated 13.02.2023 of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Special Customs Reference Application No. 566 of 2004, order of the Customs Appellate Tribunal dated 09.01.2004, and Order-in-Original dated 30.09.2002 set aside; Show Cause Notice dated 26.06.2002 declared barred by limitation and of no legal effect. (C.P. No. 684-K of 2023, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad, 18.06.2026, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J. (Yahya Afridi, CJ and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J. on the Bench); Approved for Reporting)

Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 32---False declaration, wilful suppression or fraudulent conduct---Burden on the department---Post-clearance audit---Undervaluation of imported silk fabric---Proceedings initiated on secret information regarding alleged massive evasion of customs duty and taxes in import of silk fabric during the years 2010-2012---Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Lahore, by Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2014, determined amounts of customs duty, sales tax and income tax and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,000,000---Appellate Tribunal allowed the importer's appeal and set aside the Order-in-Original---High Court answered the department's Customs Reference in the negative---Principal controversy was whether proceedings under S. 32 were legally sustainable merely on the basis of a subsequent determination that the value declared by the respondent was lower than the value allegedly prevailing in respect of other consignments, without establishing that the respondent had knowingly made a false declaration, statement or document---Held, that the High Court, while affirming the Tribunal, rightly held that the department had failed to bring on record any material demonstrating that the respondent had made a false declaration or had wilfully suppressed any material fact at the time of import---Entire case of the department rested upon a comparison of declared values with values adopted elsewhere, which by itself was insufficient to attract the penal and recovery provisions of S. 32---Before invoking S. 32, the department must establish the existence of a false statement, false declaration or other conduct falling within the mischief contemplated by the statute. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 32---Findings of fact---Leave to appeal---Scope---Collector of Customs Port Bin Qasim, Karachi v. Messrs Mia Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (2023 SCMR 2052), distinguished---Held, that the findings recorded by the Tribunal, and affirmed by the High Court, were essentially findings of fact to the effect that no evidence was available on record showing conscious misdeclaration, fraudulent conduct or submission of any false document by the respondent---Principal reliance of the petitioner on Collector of Customs Port Bin Qasim, Karachi v. Messrs Mia Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (2023 SCMR 2052) was misconceived---Ratio laid down therein was distinguishable on facts and did not advance the case of the petitioner---Leave to appeal is not granted merely because another view is possible---Interference by the Supreme Court is warranted only where the impugned judgment suffers from a patent error of law, jurisdictional defect, misapplication of settled principles, or perversity resulting in miscarriage of justice---No such illegality or infirmity was pointed out---No question of law requiring consideration by the Supreme Court was made out. Cited Cases: • Collector of Customs Port Bin Qasim, Karachi v. Messrs Mia Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad 2023 SCMR 2052 Disposition: Leave to appeal declined; civil petition dismissed. (C.P. No. 2299-L of 2023, against order dated 06.04.2023 of the Lahore High Court in Customs Reference No. 75 of 2015, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad, 18.06.2026, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J. (Yahya Afridi, CJ and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J. on the Bench); Approved for Reporting)