Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Fiscal laws---Charging provision---Interpretation---Tax can be levied only under the authority of law through an express charging provision---There is no concept of enlarging scope of charging section on the basis of ambiguous and presumptive mechanism which the scheme of law imposing tax has not provided. The Commissioner, Inland Revenue, Karachi v. Messrs Attock Cement Pakistan Limited, Karachi 2023 SCMR 279; Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad v. Messrs Al-Technique Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., and others PLD 2017 SC 99 and Commissioner Inland Revenue, Gujranwala v. S.K. Steel Casting, Gunjranwala 2019 PTD 1493 rel. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 3, 22, 25 & 47---Sale tax, charging of---Reliance on income tax returns---Scope---Petitioner / registered person was aggrieved of charging of sales tax on the basis of tax returns filed before income tax authorities---Validity---Comprehensive machinery for determination of the tax liability of a registered person has been provided, which may include audit of its/his account/record in terms of S. 25 read with S. 22 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Authorities under Sales Tax Act, 1990 may requisition record of income tax---If any discrepancy is found between income tax record and sales tax record maintained under two different regimes, then it is lawful for authorities under Sales Tax Act, 1990 to conduct audit of record maintained by registered person under S. 22 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---In certain cases authorities may under integrated system consult record of person with whom registered person has business relations---In the present case Assessing Officer while determining tax liability of petitioner entirely board its findings on the information relating to turnover of the petitioner in the income tax return, therefore, it was not lawful for Assessing Officer to have determined liability of petitioner/registered person under Sales Tax Act, 1990 on the basis of information received from income tax department/income tax returns---High Court set aside orders of fora below as very foundation of assessment was based on alien consideration and edifice built upon had to crumble---Tax reference was answered in positive. Haji Sultan Ahmed v. Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 5 others 2008 PTD 103; Messrs Al-Hilal Motors Stores and others v. The Collector, Sales Tax and Central Excise (East) Karachi and others 2004 PTD 868 and Muhammad Siddique and others v. Deputy Collector Excise and Taxation, Sales Tax Officer, Mirpur and others 1990 PTD 1088 rel. Ishtiaq Ahmed (Senior) for Petitioner. Ms. Nazish Muzaffar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th October, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Agreement to Sell—Requirement of Attestation—Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Proof of execution—Mandatory attestation by two witnesses—Effect of non-complianceHeld, under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an agreement to sell is required to be attested by two attesting witnesses for its execution to be legally admissible—The omission to produce both attesting witnesses renders the document inadmissible in evidence—Petitioner failed to produce the second attesting witness, nor did he provide any justification for not doing so—The scribe of a document is not an attesting witness unless he signs separately in that capacity—Failure to comply with mandatory attestation requirements is fatal to the validity of the agreement—Reliance placed on PLD 2011 SC 241.(b) Civil Revision—Scope of High Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C.----Limited scope—Interference only in cases of jurisdictional error, misreading, or non-reading of evidenceHeld, the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. is narrow and limited—It cannot be invoked merely to reappraise evidence or to substitute a different opinion—Interference is justified only in cases of:(i) Jurisdictional error;(ii) Illegality affecting the result of the case;(iii) Misreading or non-reading of evidence; or(iv) Findings that are perverse or contrary to law—Findings of both Trial Court and Appellate Court were concurrent and did not suffer from any material irregularity—PLD 2011 SC 241 and 2008 SCMR 1639 reaffirmed.(c) Agreement to Sell—Failure to Prove Execution—Effect----Non-production of required witnesses—Admissibility in courtHeld, where an agreement to sell is disputed, it must be proved through attesting witnesses, if alive and available—Failure to call both attesting witnesses renders the document inadmissible—Petitioner failed to prove execution as per mandatory attestation requirements under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Trial and appellate courts rightly dismissed the claim.(d) Concurrent Findings of Fact—Interference by High Court----Revisional jurisdiction not to be exercised in absence of jurisdictional error or misreading of evidenceHeld, concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any legal infirmity—High Court cannot interfere in revisional jurisdiction merely because an alternative view is possible—Revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised if the judgment is based on jurisdictional error, misreading or non-reading of evidence, or perverse findings—Petition dismissed.Disposition:Civil Revision dismissed—No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Constitutional Law—Violation of Due Process & Fair Trial Rights----Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, Art. 44—Doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem—ApplicabilityHeld, ex-parte modification of the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order (PRTO) without summoning the necessary party was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and due process—The doctrine of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) was violated, as the petitioner and proforma respondents were not given an opportunity to defend their rights before the Custodian of Evacuee Property—Right to a fair trial and due process is constitutionally guaranteed, and any decision given in violation of such rights is liable to be set aside.(b) Allotment & Cancellation of Evacuee Property—Jurisdiction & Legality----Modification of allotment order without legal notice—EffectHeld, the modification of the PRTO in favour of respondent No. 3 was illegal and void ab initio as it was done in violation of the due process—Allotment rights of evacuee property must be determined after following legal procedures, and the Custodian was bound to ensure fair hearing before making any modifications—Failure to properly summon the affected party rendered the order legally unsustainable.(c) Pending Adjudication Before Commissioner Rehabilitation—Effect on Custodian’s Order----Overlapping jurisdiction—Legal implicationsHeld, the issue of allotment rights of all allottees of the disputed survey land was already pending before the Commissioner Rehabilitation—Custodian’s modification order contradicted the previous direction for determining entitlements, making it legally unsustainable—Jurisdictional conflict must be resolved before any final order on allotment rights can be passed.(d) Writ Jurisdiction & Judicial Review—Custodian’s Order Set Aside----High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction—Scope & powersHeld, High Court had jurisdiction to review the Custodian’s order under Article 44 of the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974—Since the impugned order was passed without affording a fair hearing, it warranted interference—The Custodian was directed to decide the matter afresh after receiving the Commissioner’s report and granting a full opportunity of hearing to all parties.Disposition:Writ petition allowed—Impugned order set aside—Case remanded for fresh decision after due process.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending