Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The tax department sought reassessment of a taxpayer's income under Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, based on entries in the taxpayer's bank statements, which the department claimed indicated higher taxable income. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the taxpayer to reconcile the bank entries, showing that the transactions included customer advances and refunds, not taxable income. The Commissioner (Appeals) consequently set aside the additional tax demand. However, the department appealed, arguing that the bank statements constituted "definite information" justifying reassessment. -----Issues: 1- Whether bank statement entries constitute "definite information" under Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, justifying reassessment. -----2- Whether the tax department's reassessment order, based solely on the bank statements, was legally sustainable. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Definite Information Requirement: The court held that "definite information" must support a clear belief about tax liability without requiring further conjecture, reasoning, or processing. Simple bank statement entries, without further corroborating details, do not meet this standard as they lack sufficient certainty about tax implications. --Case Precedents and Legal Interpretation: The court referenced Supreme Court decisions, clarifying that "definite information" involves more than mere speculation or different interpretations of the same facts. Bank statements, without additional substantiation, do not inherently signify unreported income and therefore did not justify the tax department’s reassessment. The Tribunal's ruling was upheld. The tax department's use of bank statements did not constitute "definite information," and the reassessment order lacked legal grounds. The tax demand was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Commissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Rawalpindi v. Khan CNG Filling Station, Rawalpindi (2017 SCMR 1414) Income-Tax Officer and another v. M/S. Chappal Builders (1993 PTD 1108) Messrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board of Revenue (1993 SCMR 1232) Inspecting Assistant Commissioner v. Pakistan Herald Ltd. (1997 SCMR 1256) Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Bashir Ahmed (deceased) through LRs (2021 SCMR 1290)

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: The authorized officer has no power, under Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, to compel production of any record or document that is not in plain sight or that has not been voluntarily made available. Furthermore, Section 40 only permits searches and seizures IF proceedings are already pending under the act --- The petition challenges an order and a search warrant issued under Sections 38(1) and 40 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, allowing an authorized officer (respondent No.4) to inspect and seize records of the petitioner. The petitioner, a manufacturer/exporter of sanitary products, contests the legality of the search and seizure, arguing that no proceedings are pending against them. --- The petitioner contends that Section 38 allows only routine visits to inspect records, while Section 40 permits searches and seizures only if proceedings under the Act are pending. The respondent department argues that a desk audit revealed the petitioner's alleged concealment of sales, justifying the order, search warrant, and subsequent raid. --- The court examines Sections 38 and 40 of the Act, emphasizing that Section 40 requires pending proceedings for a search warrant. Referring to legal precedents, the court concludes that, in this case, no proceedings are pending, rendering the order and search warrant unsustainable. --- Regarding Section 38(1), the court clarifies that records can only be taken into custody if they are in plain sight or voluntarily made available for inspection. The court directs the respondents to return the seized data and records to the petitioner after retaining duplicate copies, as there is a factual dispute about whether the records were forcibly taken into custody. --- In summary, the court partially allows the Writ Petition, declaring the order and search warrant invalid due to the absence of pending proceedings, and directs the return of seized records. --- ''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: Acquittal --- some essential rules for cross examining the witnesses and deprecation of lengthy cross examination --- The incident involved the shooting of Muhammad Nadeem, the son of the complainant, in a dispute over landed property. The appellant, Muhammad Zafar, was alleged to have fired two shots at Nadeem, resulting in his death. The prosecution presented witnesses, including the complainant and an investigating officer, along with medical evidence from the postmortem examination.During the trial, the defense raised several arguments, challenging the credibility of the witnesses, inconsistencies in the medical and ocular accounts, and the lack of motive establishment. The defense also questioned the recovery of the weapon and its matching report.The court critically analyzed the evidence, highlighting contradictions between the ocular and medical accounts, raising doubts about the presence of witnesses at the crime scene. The court pointed out discrepancies in the identification memo of the dead body, absence of blood-stained clothes, and the questionable delay in preparing the site plan.Moreover, the court emphasized the failure to establish a clear motive for the crime, as there was no documented litigation over the disputed property. The recovery of the weapon was also deemed unreliable, with doubts raised about the handling of crime empties.The acquittal of the co-accused Muhammad Hussain further weakened the prosecution's case, as the court applied the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus i.e false in one thing, false in everything" The court concluded that the cross-examination of witnesses was not sufficient to support the prosecution's case.In light of these findings, the court cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's evidence and ultimately acquitted Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi of the charges. The judgment highlighted the importance of effective cross-examination and adherence to the rules of evidence in ensuring a fair trial.

Summary: Acquittal --- 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: ''Differentiation in granting allowances to specified employees while denying them to others within the Civil Secretariat premises was not reasonable and went against the principle of equity before the law, as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.''---- The Respondents, who were serving in the Solicitor Office, Law Department, Peshawar, had been receiving special allowance at a rate of 20% and utility allowance at a rate of 10% of their basic pay starting from February 2008. However, these allowances were discontinued from July 2008 on the grounds that the employees of the Solicitor Office were not considered part of the Civil Secretariat, and therefore, were not entitled to such allowances. The government initiated recovery of the allowances already paid to the Respondents, which led the Respondents to file a Writ Petition before the High Court.Upon hearing the case and reviewing the relevant records, the Supreme Court observed that in 1995, the Solicitor Office was made part of the Law Department of NWFP Civil Secretariat through a Notification dated 26.07.1995. In February 2008, the Finance Department, Government of NWFP, issued letters granting special and utility allowances to various government offices. These allowances were initially extended to the officers and officials of the Civil Secretariat, Chief Minister?s Secretariat, and Governor?s House/Secretariat, and later, the applicability was extended to other specified employees, including those on deputation and not part of the Secretariat Service.The Respondents had also received these allowances but were subsequently denied them on the grounds that the employees of the Solicitor Office were not considered part of the Civil Secretariat. The High Court, in its judgment, ruled that this differentiation in granting allowances to specified employees while denying them to others within the Civil Secretariat premises was not reasonable and went against the principle of equity before the law, as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, finding no legal flaws or perversity in its decision. As a result, the appeal was dismissed on 29.11.2023.

Summary: Issues:The legality and reasonableness of the amendments to the Scheme for the assessment or reassessment of rent for evacuee trust properties.---Judgment:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Peshawar High Court. The Court concluded that the amendments to the Scheme, particularly clauses 10 and 11, were not arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable.----Rationale:The Supreme Court found that the revised Scheme provided a fair and transparent procedure for the assessment and reassessment of rent, addressing the deficiencies identified in the Muzzafar Khan case. The Scheme mandates that rent assessment must consider market rates and rents of similar properties in the vicinity, ensuring that the District Officer's powers are not unbridled. The Scheme also ensures transparency by making proposed assessments available for public inspection and providing tenants with the opportunity to file objections and receive hearings. Furthermore, the Scheme allows for periodic reassessment of rent every six years with an annual increase rate of eight percent, ensuring fairness and preventing exploitation.---Citations and Precedents Relied on by the Court:Muzzafar Khan v. Evacuee Trust Property [2002 CLC 1819]: This case served as a reference point for assessing the reasonableness of the amendments. The Supreme Court distinguished the current Scheme from the one criticized in Muzzafar Khan, noting that the deficiencies identified in the earlier case had been addressed.--McInnes v. Onslow-Fane [(1978) 1 WLR 1520]: Cited to emphasize the importance of legitimate expectation and procedural fairness in administrative actions. The Supreme Court applied these principles to the amendments in the Scheme, finding that they provided sufficient protection for tenants' rights and legitimate expectations.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, whose father died while serving as a teacher, applied for the position of Primary Teacher (Female) in Mirpur. Despite qualifying for 10 additional marks under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Teacher Recruitment Policy, 2017, due to her father's death during service, these marks were not awarded to her. Consequently, she was placed at number 40 on the merit list, instead of within the top 10. The petitioner contended that respondents 12 to 23, who were initially on the waiting list, were appointed and later confirmed, bypassing her rightful claim. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner should have received the 10 additional marks under Section 10(iii) of the AJK Teacher Recruitment Policy, 2017. 2- Whether the petitioner was rightfully entitled to a higher position on the merit list and subsequent appointment. 3- Whether the failure to provide the 10 additional marks violated the petitioner's rights under the policy. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Entitlement to Additional Marks: The court held that the petitioner was indeed entitled to 10 additional marks under Section 10(iii) of the AJK Teacher Recruitment Policy, 2017, as her father had died while in service. The policy clearly stipulates that such marks should be awarded to the children or spouse of deceased civil servants who meet the prescribed qualifications and pass the test. --Higher Merit Position and Appointment: With the additional 10 marks, the petitioner's total score would be 65.35, placing her within the top 10 on the merit list. The court found that her non-inclusion in the higher ranks of the merit list and the subsequent appointments of respondents 12 to 23 were unjustified and in violation of the recruitment policy. --Violation of Petitioner's Rights: The court determined that the petitioner had been wronged by not receiving the additional marks. Despite the petitioner's claim that she submitted the necessary application and affidavit in a timely manner, the official respondents failed to award the marks, leading to a breach of her rights under the policy. The court directed the respondents to redress the petitioner's grievance within two months, ensuring that she receives the additional 10 marks and her rightful position on the merit list, with a compliance report to be submitted to the Deputy Registrar of the court. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 10(iii) of the AJ&K Teacher Recruitment Policy, 2017: Entitles the children or spouse of deceased civil servants to 10 additional marks in aggregate merit if they possess the prescribed qualifications and pass the test. Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Fatima Sharif Textile Kasoor and others [2009 PTD 37]: Upholds the principle that no one should be condemned unheard, emphasizing the necessity of providing notice and a fair opportunity to the concerned party. The court's decision ensures that the petitioner's rights under the recruitment policy are upheld and that justice is served by rectifying the merit list and her position therein.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought judicial intervention to restrain the respondents from canceling, suspending, or revoking NOCs, water rights, land lease notifications, and other crucial consents related to their Jari/Khari hydropower project. The petitioner, a private hydro power company, claimed that the government was attempting to convert the project into a public sector project, despite the petitioner's significant investment and development efforts since 1992. ----Issues: 1- Whether the cancellation of the NOC and other consents by the respondents was lawful. 2- Whether the petitioner's rights under the Water Use Agreement and other relevant laws were violated. 3- Whether the respondents acted with malafide intentions and without proper legal authority. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Cancellation of NOC and Consents: The court held that the cancellation of the NOC and other consents was not in accordance with the law. The impugned notification dated 23.04.2013 was issued without prior notice to the petitioner, lacked reasoning, and violated the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that any action affecting the rights of the petitioner must be reasoned and transparent, as required by Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. --Violation of Rights under Water Use Agreement: The court found that the respondents violated the petitioner's rights under the Water Use Agreement, which specifically prohibited the cancellation or revocation of consents granted to the petitioner. The agreement, executed between the petitioner and the government, was legally binding and protected under Article 52(A) of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974. --Malafide Intentions and Lack of Legal Authority: The court determined that the respondents acted with malafide intentions, attempting to convert a privately developed project into a public sector project without legal authority. The respondents' actions were deemed arbitrary, lacking transparency, and in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The court concluded that the petitioner's development efforts and investments since 1992 established a prima facie case for their continued development of the project. The court set aside the impugned notification dated 23.04.2013 and directed the respondents to refrain from any actions that would cancel, suspend, or revoke the NOCs, water rights, land lease notifications, and other consents granted to the petitioner. ----Citations/Precedents Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Fatima Sharif Textile Kasoor and others [2009 PTD 37]: Emphasized the necessity of providing notice to concerned parties and upholding principles of natural justice. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897: Mandates that any authority exercising power under an enactment must do so reasonably, fairly, justly, and provide reasons for their actions. 1999 SCR 167-172 2014 SCR 848 1996 SCMR 413 PLD 2007 Lah 61 2012 SCMR 773 The court's decision upheld the petitioner's rights under the Water Use Agreement and ensured that any actions affecting these rights must comply with legal and procedural requirements, emphasizing transparency and fairness.