Summary: C.P. 2007/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 6 of 2008). C.P. 2008/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No.7 of 2008). C.P. 2009/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 15 of 2008). C.P. 2010/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 75 of 2008). C.P. 2011/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 41 of 2009). C.P. 2012/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 42 of 2009). C.P. 2013/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No.39 of 2012). C.P. 2014/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 40 of 2012). C.P. 2015/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No.41 of 2008). C.P. 2016/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 42 of 2020). C.P. 2017/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 11 of 2022). C.P. 2178/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabed in Tax Ref. No. 13 of 2019). C.P. 2179/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.272 of 2011). C.P. 2180/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.273 of 2011). C.P. 2181/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.274 of 2011). C.P. 2182/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 275 of 2011). C.P. 2183/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.276 of 2011). C.P. 2184/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.277 of 2011). C.P. 2206/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.39 of 2013). C.P. 2207/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.40 of 2013). C.P. 2208/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.41 of 2013). C.P. 2209/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.42 of 2013). C.P. 2210/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 43 of 2013). C.P. 2211/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.46 of 2013). C.P. 2212/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.50 of 2013). C.P. 2213/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.51 of 2013). C.P. 2214/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.53 of 2013). C.P. 2345/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 48 of 2013). C.P. 2377/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 1 of 2008). C.P. 2378/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.58 of 2007). C.P. 2379/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.56 of 2018). C.P. 2380/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.2 of 2008). C.P. 2381/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.57 of 2018). C.P. 2570/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.80 of 2007). C.P. 2571/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.81 of 2007). C.P. 2572/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.38 of 2009). C.P. 2573/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.39 of 2009). C.P. 2575/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.62 of 2007). C.P. 2576/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.63 of 2007). C.P. 1746/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.1 of 2012). C.P. 1747/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.2 of 2012). C.P.1748/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.3 of 2012). C.P. 1749/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 135 of 2014). C.P. 1750/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 134 of 2014). C.P. 1751/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.4 of 2012). C.P. 2903/2022 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.44 of 2013). C.P. 2904/2022 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.54 of 2013). C.P. 2905/2022 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.49 of 2013). C.P. 2906/2022 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.46 of 2013). C.P. 2907/2022 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.55 of 2013). C.P. 1472/2023 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in C.M. No. 383 of 2022). Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) [since repealed]--- ----S.62 & Fifth Sched., Part I, R.3---Pakistan Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Rules, 1986, Rr.2(k), 36(1) & 38---Depletion allowance---Well-head value---Royalty---Whether royalty paid to Government is deductible while computing well-head value---Determination---Depletion allowance equal to 15% of gross receipts representing well-head value---Computation---Scope---Briefly, the facts were that the respondent company filed its return for tax year 1999-2000 showing gross receipts of Rs.694,187,000 from petroleum sales and claimed depletion allowance of Rs.104,128,050 (15%) under Rule 3, Part I, Fifth Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; the assessing officer, under Section 62, held that royalty paid to Government had to be deducted while computing wellhead value/allowance; the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the first appeal and the second appeal was also dismissed by the Tribunal---On reference, the High Court held royalty as not deductible for computing depletion allowance, giving rise to the present petitioner for leave to appeal by the Department---Primary question requiring determination before the Supreme Court was as to “Whether, for calculating depletion allowance under Rule 3, Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the amount of royalty was to be deducted from the wellhead value?”---Held: Merely because the definition of well-head value incorporated by reference the mechanism for calculation of market value that was employed for purposes of calculation of royalty under Rule 38, it did not automatically incorporate within the definition of well-head value the quantum of royalty payable to the Government as a cost that was to be excluded from market value for purposes of determination of well-head value---What the Tribunal had essentially done was to treat the royalty payable by petroleum exploration and production companies as an equity interest of the Government in the value of remaining product which was to be measured under the definition of the well-head value---The definition of well-head value did not allow reading into such definition the exclusion of royalty payable by petroleum exploration and production companies to the Government for purposes of calculation of depletion allowance pursuant to Rule 3, Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the 1979 Ordinance---Thus, the amount of royalty paid by a taxpayer to the Government had to be viewed as a separate component which was entirely independent on its own and was not to be deducted while computing the well-head value---Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court warranted no interference by the Supreme Court---Present petitions were dismissed, in circumstances. For the Petitioners: Dr. G. M. Chaudhary, Ch. Zafar Iqbal, Dr. Farhat Zafar, Ch. Imtiaz Ahmed, Advocates Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record and Khan Faisal, Additional Commissioner, Inland Revenue. For the Respondents: Azid Nafees, Hafiz M. Idrees, Khurram Mumtaz Hashmi, Sardar Ahmed Jamal Sukhera, Rashid Anwar, Advocates Supreme Court (Through video link from Karachi), Barrister Umer Aslam Khan, Anis M. Shahzad, Advocates Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record. Date of hearing: 29th November, 2023.

Summary: C.P. 2007/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 6 of 2008). C.P. 2008/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No.7 of 2008). C.P. 2009/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 15 of 2008). C.P. 2010/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 75 of 2008). C.P. 2011/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 41 of 2009). C.P. 2012/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 42 of 2009). C.P. 2013/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No.39 of 2012). C.P. 2014/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 40 of 2012). C.P. 2015/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No.41 of 2008). C.P. 2016/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 42 of 2020). C.P. 2017/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Tax Ref. No. 11 of 2022). C.P. 2178/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabed in Tax Ref. No. 13 of 2019). C.P. 2179/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.272 of 2011). C.P. 2180/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.273 of 2011). C.P. 2181/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.274 of 2011). C.P. 2182/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 275 of 2011). C.P. 2183/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.276 of 2011). C.P. 2184/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.277 of 2011). C.P. 2206/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.39 of 2013). C.P. 2207/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.40 of 2013). C.P. 2208/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.41 of 2013). C.P. 2209/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.42 of 2013). C.P. 2210/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 43 of 2013). C.P. 2211/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.46 of 2013). C.P. 2212/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.50 of 2013). C.P. 2213/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.51 of 2013). C.P. 2214/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.53 of 2013). C.P. 2345/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 48 of 2013). C.P. 2377/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 1 of 2008). C.P. 2378/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.58 of 2007). C.P. 2379/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.56 of 2018). C.P. 2380/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.2 of 2008). C.P. 2381/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.57 of 2018). C.P. 2570/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.80 of 2007). C.P. 2571/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.81 of 2007). C.P. 2572/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.38 of 2009). C.P. 2573/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.39 of 2009). C.P. 2575/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.62 of 2007). C.P. 2576/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.63 of 2007). C.P. 1746/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.1 of 2012). C.P. 1747/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.2 of 2012). C.P.1748/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.3 of 2012). C.P. 1749/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 135 of 2014). C.P. 1750/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No. 134 of 2014). C.P. 1751/2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.4 of 2012). C.P. 2903/2022 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.44 of 2013). C.P. 2904/2022 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.54 of 2013). C.P. 2905/2022 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.49 of 2013). C.P. 2906/2022 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.46 of 2013). C.P. 2907/2022 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in IT Ref. No.55 of 2013). C.P. 1472/2023 (Against the judgment dated 23.6.2022, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in C.M. No. 383 of 2022). Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) [since repealed]--- ----S.62 & Fifth Sched., Part I, R.3---Pakistan Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Rules, 1986, Rr.2(k), 36(1) & 38---Depletion allowance---Well-head value---Royalty---Whether royalty paid to Government is deductible while computing well-head value---Determination---Depletion allowance equal to 15% of gross receipts representing well-head value---Computation---Scope---Briefly, the facts were that the respondent company filed its return for tax year 1999-2000 showing gross receipts of Rs.694,187,000 from petroleum sales and claimed depletion allowance of Rs.104,128,050 (15%) under Rule 3, Part I, Fifth Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; the assessing officer, under Section 62, held that royalty paid to Government had to be deducted while computing wellhead value/allowance; the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the first appeal and the second appeal was also dismissed by the Tribunal---On reference, the High Court held royalty as not deductible for computing depletion allowance, giving rise to the present petitioner for leave to appeal by the Department---Primary question requiring determination before the Supreme Court was as to “Whether, for calculating depletion allowance under Rule 3, Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the amount of royalty was to be deducted from the wellhead value?”---Held: Merely because the definition of well-head value incorporated by reference the mechanism for calculation of market value that was employed for purposes of calculation of royalty under Rule 38, it did not automatically incorporate within the definition of well-head value the quantum of royalty payable to the Government as a cost that was to be excluded from market value for purposes of determination of well-head value---What the Tribunal had essentially done was to treat the royalty payable by petroleum exploration and production companies as an equity interest of the Government in the value of remaining product which was to be measured under the definition of the well-head value---The definition of well-head value did not allow reading into such definition the exclusion of royalty payable by petroleum exploration and production companies to the Government for purposes of calculation of depletion allowance pursuant to Rule 3, Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the 1979 Ordinance---Thus, the amount of royalty paid by a taxpayer to the Government had to be viewed as a separate component which was entirely independent on its own and was not to be deducted while computing the well-head value---Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court warranted no interference by the Supreme Court---Present petitions were dismissed, in circumstances. For the Petitioners: Dr. G. M. Chaudhary, Ch. Zafar Iqbal, Dr. Farhat Zafar, Ch. Imtiaz Ahmed, Advocates Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record and Khan Faisal, Additional Commissioner, Inland Revenue. For the Respondents: Azid Nafees, Hafiz M. Idrees, Khurram Mumtaz Hashmi, Sardar Ahmed Jamal Sukhera, Rashid Anwar, Advocates Supreme Court (Through video link from Karachi), Barrister Umer Aslam Khan, Anis M. Shahzad, Advocates Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record. Date of hearing: 29th November, 2023.

Summary: The purpose of visit, in terms of Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (Act), is to see whether proper record under the Act, relevant Rules and Regulations is maintained or not, and the authorized officer in this regard must produce the copy of authorization before commencing the inspection and visit must be confined to inspect the record and documents that are in plain sight or voluntarily made available for inspection by the person(s) present at the premises on request, and consequently only such record can be taken into custody within the meaning of Section 38 of the Act. The authorized officer has no power, under Section 38 of the Act, to compel production of any record or document that is not in plain sight or that has not been voluntarily made available as above. Further pendency of proceedings under the Act for which such documents may be useful or relevant is a precondition in terms of Section 40 of the Act for issuance of search warrant.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Some essential rules for cross examining the witnesses and deprecation of lengthy cross examination.

Summary: 302 (b)---Reappraisal of evidence-----Circumstantial evidence, is normally considered as a weak type of evidence. The evidence of extrajudicial confession does not bear any credibility and that cannot be permitted to render any sort of help to the case of the prosecution because both the witnesses of extrajudicial confession namely Rashid Imran (PW.8) and Tahir Saleem alias Tariq Saleem (PW.9) are not relatives of Sheraz Gul, who had no authority or any status in the vicinity to get pardon from him in favour of the appellant. Even otherwise, the evidence of extrajudicial confession has been declared a weak type of evidence by the Supreme Court of Pakistan----Evidence of foot tracker furnished by Muhammad Iqbal (PW.11) is not reliable as requirements of Rule 26 of Champter XXV of The Punjab Police Rules, 1934 habe not been fulfilled in this case----The prosecution has failed to prove the safe custody of moulds as statement of Ghulam Qadir, SI (PW.15) is silent about the fact that on which date and time, he handed over the moulds to the moharrar of the police station----- Moreover, the report of Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PU) is partially negative.----the evidence of last seen furnished by Muhammad Numan (PW.14) and Sana Ullah (PW.16) is not helpful to the prosecution as they failed to justify their presence at the canal where the baby was allegedly thrown by the accused persons. Moreover, their conduct is highly unnatural-----co-accused of the appellant Yasir Ali has been acquitted of the charge through the same judgment to whom effective role was ascribed by the prosecution in the occurrence---Recovery of Churri at the instance of appellant was effected from open place and the report of Forensic Science Agency, Lahore is in the negative. Recovery of motorcycle at the pointation of the appellant is inconsequential as no registration number, colour, company name has been described by the prosecution witnesses-----The prosecution has also failed to prove the motive part of the occurrence. The case against the appellant is replete with doubts and his conviction and sentence cannot be upheld on the basis of such shaky and untrustworthy evidence. The appeal is accepted and the accused is acquitted of the charge?..

Summary: No one can transfer a better title than he himself had in the property and transferee stepping into shoes of transferor, who was not lawful owner of property, would not get a better title for the reason that despite continuous possession of property by such transferor, the same would not improve his title by efflux of time.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Conduct of the accused pointing towards his guilt---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/niece of complainant by firing---Complainant who being the maternal uncle of the deceased reached the hospital and reported the matter---While reporting the matter the complainant disclosed the strained relationship between the spouses and he disclosed that the appellant compelled the deceased to fetch firewoods from the forest, to which she refused and her refusal led to the tragic incident---Admittedly, the deceased after receiving firearm injuries died on the spot, the dead body was rushed to the hospital and the matter was reported by the complainant, so the court was to see the conduct of the appellant and his presence at the stated time---Record showed that the appellant, soon after the incident, left the scene till his arrest---Record further told that it was not the appellant who shifted the dead body of the deceased from the spot to the hospital, and that it was not the appellant who reported the matter---Conduct displayed by the appellant, soon after the incident, was a circumstance, which could not be overlooked rather it increased the anxiety of the Court to trace out his responsibility and his involvement in the murder of the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Saeed Ahmed v. The State 2015 SCMR 710 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Plea of suicide not established by the accused---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/niece of complainant by firing---Incident admittedly occurred inside the house of the deceased, that too, on the first floor of the house and when the house was inhabited and rest of the family members were living in the same, in such eventuality, the Court could not take into consideration that an outsider entered and committed the offence---When the Court came to the conclusion that the deceased did not commit suicide and when it excluded the possibility of entering of a stranger in the house, then the Court was not reluctant in placing the liability and responsibility over the shoulders of the appellant---Moreover, it was the appellant who had to tell how the tragic incident occurred and it was for him to convince that the deceased committed suicide---Seat of injury and the manner in which the same was caused excluded the possibility that the death was suicidal---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of pistol and empties---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/niece of complainant by firing--- Collected pistol and the recovered empty were answered in negative by the fire arms expert---Had the deceased committed suicide the two would have matched---Report was received in negative because the pistol used was replaced with the collected one---Though the replacement was made to avoid the consequences, but instead it added to the miseries of the appellant--- Had the actual pistol been recovered, then there was every likelihood of a matching report and the same would speak in favour of the appellant, but the negative report had established the ill intention of the appellant and all concerned, that it was the appellant who was responsible for the murder of the deceased and that it was the appellant who replaced the weapon used for the killing of the deceased---When all these circumstances were taken into consideration, no ambiguity was left that the deceased did not commit suicide, rather it indicated that the deceased was killed and that it was the appellant who was instrumental in the killing of the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence and circumstantial evidence not supporting plea of suicide---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/niece of complainant by firing---Record showed that the deceased received an injury on the left side of parietal bone with its exit on the right side of parietal bone, so the same increased the anxiety of the Court as to whether the same could be caused by the deceased and whether the same was possible in the case of a suicide---When the medical evidence was taken into consideration it left no ambiguity in stating that the deceased did not commit suicide---Medical evidence did not support the plea of suicide, when charring marks were not noted, so in such eventuality the Court was confident in holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that apart from medical evidence, the circumstantial evidence supported the story of the prosecution and the involvement of the appellant in the death of the deceased---In the present case no eye-witness account was available, but the circumstantial evidence and the medical evidence when taken into consideration, lent support to each other and the unity between the two led the Court to conclude that it was the appellant who killed the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is confirmatory in nature and in case of trustworthy and confidence inspiring eye-witness account the same plays little role, but when such ocular account either fails or the same is not available, then in such circumstances of a particuter case the medical e vidence plays a decisive role. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Non-production of defence evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/niece of complainant by firing---Appellant did not produce the inmates of his house in his defence, who could better explain the circumstances in which the deceased died---When none from the house came in support of the claim of the appellant, then it was the appellant alone who was instrumental in the death of the deceased and the prosecution succeeded in connecting the appellant with the tragic incident---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Motive---Scope---Absence or weakness of motive by itself would not be sufficient for acquitting an accused, rather the same could be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of sentence to be awarded. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/niece of complainant by firing---Abscondance would not be sufficient for holding an accused guilty, but once the prosecution succeeded in connecting the accused with the offence charged for, and once the prosecution succeeded in collecting reliable evidence on file, then the unexplained abscondance could be taken into consideration---In the present case, the appellant was the husband of the deceased and soon after the tragic death of the deceased, he left the spot till his arrest, so the conduct he displayed was another circumstance, which could be taken into consideration in favour of the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Latif v. The State PLD 2008 SC 503 rel. Syed Abdul Fayaz and Shah Nawaz Khan for Appellant. Jalal-ud-Din Akbar Azam Gara, A.A.G. for the State. Yousaf Shah Mohmand for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 29th November, 2023.

Summary: (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss.38 & 40---Raid, search warrant, access to and seizure of business records by FBR---Issuance of search warrant---Precondition of pending proceedings---Scope---The challenge in the present Constitutional petition concerned the legality of the raid, search, and seizure of the petitioner's business records conducted by Inland Revenue authorities under Ss. 38 & 40 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---The main issue before the High Court was whether, in the absence of any pending proceedings under the Act, 1990, the authorities were justified in obtaining and executing a search warrant and taking custody of the petitioner's documents, or whether such action exceeded the lawful scope of powers conferred under the Act, 1990---Held: In the present case, admittedly the impugned order and the search warrant in question were issued in pursuance of the desk audit analysis highlighting concealment of sales but there were no proceedings pending under the Act, 1990 for which the documents could be useful or relevant, which was a precondition under S. 40 of the Act, 1990 for issuance of search warrant---When there were no proceedings pending under the Act, 1990, the provision of S. 40 of the Act for search could not be invoked---The desk audit analysis could at best be treated as inquiry or investigation but did not amount to proceedings under the Act, therefore, the provision of S. 40 of the Act could not be invoked in the impugned order or search warrant, therefore, to that extent the impugned order and search warrant were not sustainable---Indeed the respondents could neither invoke the provisions of S.40 of the Act nor they could compel production of any record or documents that were not in plain sight or had not been voluntarily made available, however, perusal of the copy of Resumption Memo (appended with reply), showed that same had been duly stamped by the petitioner, as required under S. 38(1) of the Act---Though the petitioner in the present petition had challenged the impugned order and impugned search warrant claiming that the respondent No.4 along with officials and policemen entered its business premises and took away the record but it was nowhere specifically pleaded that said record was not in plain sight or was forcibly taken into custody by respondents---On the other hand, the respondents in their reply though defended the impugned order and search warrant on legal plane yet nowhere stated that the record was made available voluntarily for inspection and taken into custody on request---This being a factual dispute could not be decided in the Constitutional petition, therefore, the respondents were directed to return the data and record as per Resumption Memo to the petitioner after retaining the duplicate copies thereof---Constitutional petition was partially allowed, in circumstances. Pakistan Chipboard (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive Officer v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2015 PTD 1520 ref. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss.38 & 40---Search warrant, access and seizure of business records by FBR---Legality and scope---Plain reading of S. 38(1) of the Act, 1990 shows that any officer, authorized by the Commissioner Inland Revenue, shall have free excess to the business or manufacturing premises, registered office or any other place where any stock, business record or documents required under this Act are kept or maintained belonging to the registered person or a person liable for registration or whose business activities are covered under this Act or who may be required for any inquiry or investigation in any tax fraud---Under S. 38 of the Act, 1990, an officer authorized may inspect and also take into custody the record mentioned therein, as he may deem fit, against a signed receipt---Purpose of visit, in terms of S. 38 of the Act, is to see whether proper record under the Act, relevant Rules and Regulations is maintained or not, and the authorized officer in this regard must produce the copy of authorization before commencing the inspection and visit must be confined to inspect the record and documents that are in plain sight or voluntarily made available for inspection by the persons present at the premises on request, and consequently only such record can be taken into custody within the meaning of S. 38 of the Act---Whereas under S. 40 of the Act, 1990, where any officer of Inland Revenue has reason to believe that any document or things which in his opinion, may be useful for, or relevant to any proceedings under this Act are kept in any place, he may, after obtaining warrant from Magistrate, enter that place or cause a search to be made at any time. Ghulam Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others 2021 PTD 1379; Messrs Apple Paper Products (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Director Chief Executive Officer v. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman and 2 others 2019 PTD 787; Agha Steel Industries Ltd. through Authorized Company Secretary and another v. Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation through Director and 2 others 2019 PTD 2119; Messrs Iqbal and Sons through Authorized Representative v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others 2017 PTD 590; Messrs Stylo Shoes through Managing Partner and another v. Deputy Director and others 2013 PTD 1780; Z & J Hygienic Products (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector Sales Tax (2011) 103 TAX 281; A.M.Z. Spinning and Weaving Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager Finance v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division/Ex-Officio Chairman, C.B.R., Islamabad and 2 others 2009 PTD 1083; Messrs Food Consults (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore and others v. Collector (Central Excise and Sales Tax), Lahore and 2 others 2004 PTD 1731; Messrs Ihsan Yousaf Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others 2003 PTD 2037 and Director Intelligence and Investigation v. M/s BIOCOS International and 5 others PLJ 2020 Lah. 1 ref. (c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss.40 & 40-A---Search warrant, access and seizure of business records by FBR---Legality and scope---As per the language employed in Ss. 40 & 40A of the Act 1990, the requirement of law appears to be that where an officer of sales tax has reason to believe that any document or things, which in his opinion may be relevant to any proceedings under the Act, are concealed or kept in any place and there is a danger of removal of such documents or records, he may, after obtaining warrant from Magistrate, enter that place and cause a search to be made at any time and the search authorized shall be carried out strictly in accordance with relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise (Enforcement) and another v. Messrs Mega Tech (Pvt.) Ltd. 2005 PTD 1933 rel. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Omer Wahab and Azeem Ullah Virk for Petitioner. Mrs. Kausar Parveen, Advocate/Legal Advisor along with Muhammad Ayaz Nawaz, Deputy Commissioner, Inland Revenue Zone-V, RTO, Lahore for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th November, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending