Summary: Audit for successive tax years----- The petitioner argued that since a previous audit had been conducted for a period preceding the one in question, there were no reasonable grounds for initiating another audit. The respondents countered by highlighting that Section 177(7) of the Ordinance allowed for successive audits based on reasonable grounds. The judgment referred to legal precedents to support the State's right to examine a taxpayer's books through audits to ensure correct tax liabilities. The judge emphasized that audit proceedings were a legitimate means of determining accurate tax liability and that the statutory framework, along with Constitutional guarantees, safeguarded the taxpayer's interests. The judgment also cited a previous case's conclusion that, if the notice provided valid reasoning for audit selection, the law did not require a separate inquiry into the taxpayer's objections. The judge noted that the Impugned Notice in this case provided reasoning for the audit selection in the context of a new tax year. The judge found that Section 177(7) of the Ordinance allowed for audits in successive years, and no evidence was presented to suggest that the grounds for the audit specified in the notice were unreasonable. The judge also observed that the petitioner did not assert any infringement of vested Constitutional rights due to the audit selection. The judge deemed the petitioner's arguments lacking in merit and dismissed the petition, along with any pending applications. The judgment concluded with a short order that outlined the dismissal of the case and provided the reasons for this decision.

Summary: (a) Civil service-------Contractual employment---Scope---Appellant assailed the dismissal of his constitutionalpetition which was filed against the termination of his contractual employment---Validity---Contract of employment explicitly showed that the appointment was purely temporary whichcould be terminated on thirty days' notice or in lieu of payment without assigning any reason---Appellant, at the time of joining, had accepted all the terms and conditions of hiscontractual employment and he could not resile from the same at belated stage---Recordestablished that the appellant's performance had remained unsatisfactory---Intra court appeal,being bereft of any force, was dismissed.Chairman NADRA, Islamabad, through Chairman, Islamabad and another v.Muhammad Ali Shah and others 2017 SCMR 1979 ref.Shahzad Ghohar v. Government of Punjab and Aitchison College through its Board ofGovernor 2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 1; Muhammad Mohsin Ismail v. Managing Director PunjabDaanish Schools and 2 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 722; Dr. Abid Ali v. Chief Secretary,Government of Punjab and 3 others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 488; Mubashar Majeed v. Province ofPunjab and 3 others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 940; IPC through Secretary v. Arbab Altaf Hussain2014 SCMR 1573; Kamran Ahmad v. WAPDA 2014 PLC (C.S.) Lah. 332; Miss NaureenNaz Butt v. Pakistan International Airlines through Chairman, PIA and others 2020 SCMR1625 and Pakistan International Airlines v. Naureen Butt 2017 PLC (C.S.) 923 rel.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Contractual employment---Scope---Contract employee cannot seek enforcement of contractual obligations by invokingconstitutional jurisdiction.Maj. (Retd) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas v. Federation of Pakistan throughSecretary Ministry of Interior and another 2019 SCMR 984 and Chairman NADRA,Islamabad v. Muhammad Ali Shah and others 2017 SCMR 1979 ref.

Summary: Election-2018/Nomination Papers Dispute---he case involved a challenge to the eligibility of the appellant as a candidate in the general elections of 2018 from constituency NA-105 Faisalabad-V. The objections raised against the appellant's eligibility were related to his compliance with Articles 62/63 of the Constitution, a decree against his spouse, and financial matters. The Returning Officer initially accepted the nomination papers, but the Lahore High Court reversed this decision, leading to the present appeal.The Supreme Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Umar Ala Bandial, Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, and Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, considered the appeal. The Court held that the High Court had misinterpreted Section 62(9)(c) of the Election Act, 2017, and that the appellant's nomination papers were valid. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring fairness and justice while exercising discretionary powers in constitutional matters.The judgment discussed the appellant's right to participate in political activities as guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions. The Court also noted that while the appellant had temporarily been deprived of his right to participate in political activities, the final outcome demonstrated that he was not a victim of the court's action but a beneficiary of the legal process.Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Lahore High Court's judgment, and reinstated the decision of the learned Election Tribunal and the Returning Officer, which had accepted the appellant's nomination papers.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XVII, Rr. 2 & 3 & O. IX---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 39---Suit fordeclaration and cancellation of sale-deed---Dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution and lackof interest---Effect---Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's view---Validity---Held, thatthere was distinction between R.2 & R.3 of the O.XVII, C.P.C.; in R. 2 of the said Order,where the suit was adjourned, the parties or any of them failed to appear, the Court couldproceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes prescribed under O.IX, C.P.C. or couldmake such order as it thought fit; while under R. 3, when time was granted and any partyfailed to produce his evidence or to cause the attendance of his witnesses or to perform anyother act, which was necessary for further progress of the suit, on default, the Court wouldproceed to decide the suit forthwith---To attract the procedure laid down under O.XVII, R.3of the C.P.C.; firstly adjournment must have been on the instance of a party and secondlythere must be material on record for the Court to peruse and decide the case---Forproceedings under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C., there had to be material to decide the suitforthwith---Trial Court, in the present case, proceeded to decide the suit forthwith, withouthaving any material before it, and thus, had acted in its jurisdiction illegally and withmaterial irregularity---Trial Court, in the present case, had not even discussed the materialavailable on record and dismissed the suit for lack of interest and non-prosecution, which didnot fulfil the requirement of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C.---While Appellate Court decided the caseon merit and suit was dismissed on the ground that land-in-question was unsettled one,therefore, the plaintiff had no title---Said judgment of the Appellate Court was not accordingto the law as there was no provision in the law where the settlement having not beenconducted by the concerned state functionaries, the inhabitant(s) of the Unsettled Areaswould lose his/their title---High Court set aside the decrees and judgments passed by both theCourts below and remanded the case to the Trial Court with direction to provide twoopportunities to the petitioner/plaintiff to produce his evidence---Revision was allowed, incircumstances.Muhammad Haleem v. H. H. Muhammad Naim PLD 1969 SC 270 and TanzeemCorporation Gupis/Yasin v. Momin Shah 2016 CLC 1490 ref.(b) Title-------Property---Title was to be decided on the basis of evidence and not on presumptions andconjunctions.

Summary: Background:The Administrator Municipal Corporation Peshawar filed a Civil Appeal against Taimur Hussain Amin and others. The court issued an order directing the Chief Secretary and Secretary of the Local Government Elections and Rural Development Department to ensure compliance with section 39 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013 (?the Act?), which mandates the submission of annual reports disclosing particulars of public properties. However, the government failed to comply adequately, leading to the filing of a Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA) detailing moveable assets.---Issues:Whether the government's compliance with the court order and section 39 of the Act regarding the disclosure of public properties was satisfactory.Whether the failure to hold local government elections, as mandated by the Constitution and the Act, constitutes a violation of constitutional duties.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court expressed dissatisfaction with the government's compliance, noting that the filed documents, comprising 479 pages, did not meet the requirement of disclosing public properties adequately. It emphasized the importance of electronic/digital disclosure of public properties on a government website for public awareness and prevention of pilferage.Furthermore, the court highlighted the government's failure to hold local government elections, despite constitutional and statutory obligations. It reminded all constitutional office holders, including the Chief Election Commissioner and members of the Election Commission of Pakistan, of their duty to abide by the Constitution and the law.The court directed the Chief Election Commissioner, members of the Election Commission of Pakistan, the Chief Minister, and members of the Provincial Cabinet to ensure compliance with the Act and the Constitution. Copies of the order were sent to relevant authorities for immediate action.---Citations/Precedents:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 231, 353 & 537-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A-Recall of witnesses when charge altered-Evidence to be taken in presence of accused-Scope-Where evidence already recorded in first round of litigation, after framing of fresh charge, was adopted not only by the prosecution but also by the defense, High Court observed that such adoption of evidence was against the spirit of S. 231, Cr.P.C. which prescribed that if the charge was altered, added or amended, then the witnesses already examined were to be re-called and re-examined, on point of alteration, addition or amendment so made in the charge-Adoption of such evidence was also contrary to the mandate contained in S. 353, Cr.P.C., which prescribed that the evidence of witnesses shall be taken in presence of accused facing trial-Procedure adopted by the Trial Court being incurable had not only occasioned in failure of justice, as defined in subsection (b) of S. 537, Cr.P.C. but had prejudiced the appellant in his defense seriously, which was against the mandate contained in Art. 10-A of the Constitution, which guaranteed chance of fair trial and due process to every citizen for determination of his civil/criminal rights and obligations-Case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh/de novo trial. Zahid Karim and others v. The State and others 2005 PCr.LJ 998 rel. Complainant in person. Ms. Sana Memon, A.P.G. for the State.

Summary: (a) Interpretation of statutes- -Procedural and substantive law-Determination of nature of a statute-Test applied to determine whether a statute is 菟rocedural law or 都ubstantive law-Scope-Real nature of any statute could not be determined by its nomenclature and description, but a glance at such statute痴 actual contents was essential-While distinction between substantive law and procedural law was clearly drawn in theory, there were many rules of procedure which, in practical operation, were wholly or substantially equivalent to rules of substantive law-Law of procedure may be defined as that branch of the law which governed process of litigation and all that was the residue was substantive law and related not to process of litigation but to its purpose and subject matter. The Anatomy of Science (1926) P. 178; Salmond on Jurisprudence by P. J. Fitzgerald, 12th Edition, Section 128; Nabi Ahmed and another v. Home Secretary, Government of the West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others PLD 1969 SC 599; S. M. Junaid v. President of Pakistan PLD 1981 SC 12; Aftabuddin Qureshi and another v. Mst. Rachel Joseph and another PLD 2001 SC 482 and Muhammad Asghar v. Hussain Ahmad and others PLD 2014 SC 89 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -Preamble & S. 1-Nature and scope of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Every important rule of both procedure and substantive law were intertwined in the C.P.C. so as to make same as much as possible a comprehensive compendium to cover complete system of the Courts of Civil Judicature. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S. 115-Revision-Nature of jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C.-Right to seek revision by filing application under S.115 of C.P.C. of a case decided in which no appeal lay, on ground of irregular or improper exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction, was a substantive right conferred by the C.P.C. The Relation of Dress to Art in Pall Mall Gaz. (28 Feb. 1885); Muhammad Riasat, SET (Science) and others v. The Secretary of Education, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others 1997 SCMR 1626; Azmatullah through LRs. v. Mst. Hameeda Bibi and others 2005 SCMR 1201; National Bank of Pakistan through Chairman v. Nasim Arif Abbasi and others 2011 SCMR 446; Karamat Hussain and others v. Muhammad Zaman and others PLD 1987 SC 139 and Mandi Hassan alias Mehdi Hussain and another v. Muhammad Arif PLD 2015 SC 137 rel. (d) Interpretation of statutes- -Statutory amendment/repeal-Effect of amendment/repeal of statutes-Maxim 渡ova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis-Construction of amendatory or repealing statutes-Scope-Where a section of a statute was amended, then original provision ceased to exist and said new section superseded it and became part of law just as if amendment had always been there and in such a situation, rules of interpretation applicable to repeal may also apply to amendment-No difference existed between a case where Legislature declared a particular section as amended in a particular way and a case where Legislature declared that a section stood repealed and its place would be taken by a new section, if said new section was same as amended section-General rule as to the effect of repeal of a statute followed from legal maxim 渡ova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis which meant that new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. People v. Supervisors of Montgomery (67 N.Y.109); The Construction of Statute by Earl T. Crawford, Saint Louis Thomas Law Book Company (1940); Chapter XII; Understanding Statutes by S. M. Zafar, Second Edition, Chapter-VI and Saeed Ahmad v. The State PLD 1964 SC 266 rel. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -Ss. 115 & 104-Code of Civil Procedure (Punjab Amendment) Act (XIV of 2018), S. 19-Revisional jurisdiction of High Court under S.115, C.P.C.-Nature-Effect of amendment in S.115, C.P.C.-Applicability of bar to revision against order passed under S.104, C.P.C. vide S.115(5), C.P.C., applicability of-Right to remedy of revision accrued on commencement of suit/proceedings-Scope-Question before High Court was whether S.115(5), C.P.C. which was inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Punjab Amendment) Act, 2018 and which barred revision under S.115, C.P.C. on orders passed by District Court in an appeal filed under 104, C.P.C.; would apply on cases which had already commenced in Trial Court/Original Court before such enactment/insertion came into force-Held, that legal pursuit of a remedy, appeal or second appeal or revision were steps in a series of proceedings all connected by intrinsic unity and were to be regarded as one legal proceeding-Right of appeal or revision or second appeal was not a mere matter of procedure but a substantive right, and institution of a suit carried with it implication that all such rights then in force, were preserved to parties thereto till rest of career of such suit-Right of appeal or revision was vested right and such right accrued to litigant and existed as on and from date the lis commenced and although same may be actually exercised when adverse judgment was pronounced, however such right was to be governed by law prevailing as on date of institution of suit or proceeding and not by law that prevailed at date of decision or at date of filing of such appeal/ revision-Said vested right of appeal or revision or second appeal could be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it so provided expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise-High Court held that right of revision vested in parties at such date when litigation commenced and such right was to be governed by law as it prevailed on said date which was that date the parties acquired right to seek remedy of revision under S.115, C.P.C., if unsuccessful in appeal under S.104, C.P.C.-Review was allowed, accordingly. School Board Election for the Parish of Pulborough, Bourke and others v. Nutt (1894) 1 QB 725; Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited v. Irving 1905 AC 369; Muhammad Ishaq v. The State PLD 1956 SC 256; Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Coudhry and others PLD 1957 SC (Ind.) 448; The State v. Maulvi Muhammad Jamil and others PLD 1965 SC 681; Muhammad Alam and 3 others v. The State PLD 1967 SC 259; Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187; Nabi Ahmed and another v. Home Secretary, Government of the West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others PLD 1969 SC 599; Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Messrs Pak Saaf Dry Cleaners PLD 1981 SC 553; Idrees Ahmad and others v. Hafiz Fida Ahmad Khan and 4 others PLD 1985 SC 376 and West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Rashid Ahmad and another 1988 SCMR 526 rel.

Summary: (a) Punjab Local Government Act (XIII of 2019)- -S. 156-Punjab Local Government Act (XVIII of 2013), Ss. 115 & 87-Companies Act (XIX of 2017) S.22-Local Government Taxes, Fees, Rates and Tolls-Authority of a local government to levy taxes etc.-Statutory requirement of publication of name by a company by way of conspicuous display outside every place of business of such company-Levy of local government taxes/fee(s) on such display/ signage-Scope-Question before High Court was whether Provincial Local Government could levy fee on petitioner Banking Companies for display of signboards at their places of business, when such display was made in compliance of requirement of S.22 of Companies Act, 2017 read with applicable State Bank of Pakistan Circulars-Held, that petitioner Banks and other corporate entities were required under Federal Law to affix their signboards on their premises, regardless of whether such premises were in their ownership or rented, and thus they should be exempt from any fee to such extent, as Provincial Law could not override provisions of Federal Law-High Court held that any fee that was charged by Provincial Local Government under S.156 of Punjab Local Government Act, 2019 would be cognizant of provisions of Federal Statutes requiring Banks and corporate entities to install signboards outside their premises as per the Companies Act, 2017 and State Bank of Pakistan Circulars-Constitutional petitions were allowed, accordingly. Bank Alfalah Limited v. Messrs Callmate Telips Telecom Ltd. and 5 others 2016 CLD 1202 ref. Soneri Bank Limited v. Province of Punjab and others PLJ 2020 Lah. 239 rel. (b) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)- -Ss. 200 & 282-Cantonment Board, powers of-Power of Cantonment Board to make bye-laws-Levy of advertisement fee by Cantonment Board in respect of display/signage outside business premises-Scope-Petitioners impugned bye-laws issued by Cantonment Board regarding pasting of billboards and advertisements and levy of advertisement fee on petitioners' display outside their premises, on ground that under Cantonments Act, 1924, no such power was available to Cantonment Board-Validity-Power to make byelaws under S.282 of Cantonments Act, 1924 was subject to provisions of said Act, and such power was dependent upon statutory power given to Cantonment Board-Section 200 of Cantonments Act, 1924 authorized Cantonment Board to levy fee in a limited manner, and Cantonment Board could not enlarge scope of said section to include fee on advertisements-Cantonment Board therefore had no authority to levy fee in relation to boards installed by petitioners at their offices/premises-Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly. Hyderabad Cantonment Board v. Raj Kumar and others 2015 SCMR 1385; Allied Bank Limited v. Province of Punjab and others (I.C.A. No.62 of 2015); Habib Bank Limited Islamabad v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and others (Civil Appeal No.796 of 2015) and Messrs Haidri Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. v. City District Government, Rawalpindi through D.C.O. and others (I.C.A. No.50 of 2015) rel. (c) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)- -S.22-Statutory requirement of publication of name by a company by way of conspicuous display outside every place of business of a company/corporate entity-Levy of Local Government, Housing Authorities, Parks and Horticulture Authority, National Highway Authority charges/fee(s) on such display/signage-Scope-Banks and corporate entities were entitled to install signboard/signage in compliance with Companies Act, 2017 and State Bank of Pakistan Policy without charge of fee subject to any rules or regulations on size and shape; provided same did not contain any advertisement material. Malik Muhammad Umar Awan, Raza Imtiaz Siddiqui, Jamshed Alam, Qadeer Kalyar, Syed Ali Zafar, Mubashir Aslam Zar, Muhammad Asif Ismail, Mansoor Usman Awan, Ms. Shazeen Abdullah, Mohsin Mumtaz, Ali Sibtain Fazli, Hasham Ahmad Khan, Abad ur Rehman and Esa Jalil, Mustafa Ramday, Khalid Ishaq; Syeda Fatima Tanveer, Ashar Elahi, Adnan Kazmi, Chaudhary Muhammad Arshad, Usman Nawaz, Zafar Iqbal Kalanauri, Waseem Ahmad Malik, Muhammad Asif Butt, Sheikh Anwaar ul Haq, Hafiz Muhammad Kalim Ullah, Faizan Munir Joyia, Ahmad Kamal Khan, Salman Akram Raja, Malik Ahsan, Ms. Atira Akram, Arslan Riaz, Zeeshan Nadeem, Adil Aftab Kashmiri, Bilal Kashmiri, Kashif Hussain, Shahzad Ahmad Cheema, Asif ur Rehman, Abdul Hameed Chohan, Chaudhary Sohail Khurshid, A.W. Butt, Imran Mushtaq, Abid Hussain, Dr. Zia Ullah Ranjha, Chaudhary Muhammad Shakeel, Afrasiab Mohal, Muhammad Adeel Chaudhary Muhammad Azam Zia, Yasir Islam Chaudhary, Imran Aziz Khan, Ch. Abdul Rab, Umer Abdullah, Kashif Ali Chaudhary, Ms. Shazia Ashraf Khan, Faisal Hanif, Faizan ul Haq Dar, Syed Sajid Ali Bukhari, Abdul Latif, Tahir Farooq, Arslan Munir Joiya, Waqar A. Khan, Imran Mustafa, Hafiz Mudassar Hassan Kamran and Mian Asghar Ali. Federation of Pakistan Ms. Ambreen Moeen, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan along with Azmat Hayat Khan Lodhi, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan. Province of Punjab Waqar Saeed Khan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Local Government and Community Development Department (Municipal Corporations) Khalid Jamil, Muhammad Rafique Chaudhry, Sardar Naeem Akbar Khan, Chaudhary Asif Shahzad Sahi, Barrister Chaudhary Saeed H. Nangra, Zafar Iqbal Bhatti and Ms. Samra Malik. Cantonment Boards Barrister Muhammad Umer Riaz, Haroon Rashid, Waqas Umer Sial, Barrister Bushra Saqib, Sardar Balakh Sher Khan Khosa, Naveed Akhtar Chaudhary, Rana Nasr Ullah Khan, Muhammad Imran Haider Bhatti, Muhammad Ali Sherazi, Mian Haseeb ul Hassan, Salman Ahmad, Mrs. Samia Khalid, Zarak Zaman Khan, Sheikh Nadeem Arshad, Muhammad Anwar Chaudhary, Chaudhary Muhammad Atiq, Chaudhary Muhammad Umar, Mufi Ahtesham Uddin Haider, Malik Khurram Shahzad, Zulqarnain Hammad and Muhammad Arif Thothaal. Parks and Horticulture Authority Waqar A. Sheikh, Ms. Humaira Afzal, Faisal G. Miran, Abdur Rauf Sindhu, Rana Muhammad Afzal Razzaq Khan, Sardar M.S. Tahir, Mian Abdul Qadoos, Rao Aurangzeb Rashid and Muhammad Rafiq Shah. National Highway Authority Malik Muhammad Jhenagir Aslam. Defence Housing Authority Altaf ur Rehman Khan and Ishfaq Amir Hussain, Mubeen Uddin Qazi, Advocate for private Respondent No.5 (in W.P. No.222831 of 2018). Muhammad Khalid Chaudhary, Advocate for private Respondent No.9 (in W.P. No. 203795 of 2018).

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending