Summary: Background: The case involves the dismissal of an Income Tax Reference filed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue under Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for non-prosecution. The petitioner subsequently filed an application for restoration, which was also dismissed. The petitioner argued that a Tax Reference should not be dismissed for non-prosecution as it invokes the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court. They also contended that Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, providing a three-year period for filing restoration applications, should apply.---Issues:Whether a Tax Reference filed under Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, can be dismissed for non-prosecution.Which provision of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies to the restoration application: Article 168 or Article 181?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court clarified that a Tax Reference under Section 133(1) should be construed and applied as an appeal rather than invoking advisory jurisdiction. Therefore, it can be dismissed for non-prosecution, and Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908, providing a 30-day period for restoration, applies instead of Article 181. Additionally, the court found that the merits of the restoration application were insufficient to justify restoration. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and leave was refused.---Citations/Precedents:M/s. Squibb Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2017 SCMR 1006)---Quote:Tax Reference can be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Summary: Background: Akhtar Ali, the petitioner, sought the transfer of cases pending before a learned Judicial Magistrate in Sheikhupura to a Court in Gojra District Nankana Sahib. After failing in his attempts before the District & Sessions Judge Sheikhupura and a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, his petition was dismissed, and he was burdened with a cost of Rs.50,000. Dissatisfied, he approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's conduct towards the lower courts and judicial officers warranted the imposition of costs.Whether the cost imposed by the Lahore High Court was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court condemned the petitioner's behavior towards the lower courts and judicial officers as outrageous and scandalous. It emphasized the importance of preserving the dignity, respect, and independence of the judiciary for the peaceful functioning of society. While the petitioner expressed remorse before the Supreme Court, acknowledging his wrongdoing, the court upheld the imposition of costs but reduced it to Rs.2000 as a symbolic reminder of his misconduct. The court warned the petitioner to exercise restraint and respect towards the judiciary in the future. The petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Background:In Civil Appeals No. 188 to 193 of 2020 before the Supreme Court of Pakistan (Appellate Jurisdiction), the appellants challenged judgments rendered by the Peshawar High Court. The dispute centered around a notification dated 14.07.2016, which granted an allowance to employees holding M.Phil degrees. Respondents, holding degrees equivalent to M.Phil, sought the same allowance.---Issues:Whether the Peshawar High Court erred in granting relief based on letters from the Higher Education Commission (HEC) regarding degree equivalencies.Whether the notification's language limited the allowance to holders of M.Phil degrees recognized by the HEC.Whether there was discrimination in the notification's application and in comparison to similar allowances in other provinces.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held:The Peshawar High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by relying on HEC letters for relief, as the HEC's mandate is limited to academic matters, not financial benefits.The notification clearly intended to grant the M.Phil allowance only to holders of degrees recognized by the HEC as M.Phil, not to those with equivalent degrees.The absence of discrimination was affirmed, as the notification differentiated between M.Phil degree holders and others, and variations in allowances across provinces were within their constitutional powers.---Citations/Precedents:S.M.C. No.15 of 2010 and C.M.As. Nos.2689, 3244 of 2010 and CMAs. Nos.5383, 3068 of 2011 (2013 SCMR 304) - Regarding provincial powers and decisions.Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan - Limitations on High Courts regarding service matters.Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 - Mandate and limitations of the HEC.Notification dated 14.07.2016 - Textual analysis of the notification granting the M.Phil allowance.Letters from the Higher Education Commission (HEC) - Evidence of the HEC's role and limitations.Judgments dated 07.02.2018, 20.06.2019, 19.09.2019, 30.10.2019, 24.10.2019, and 21.11.2019 of the Peshawar High Court - Decisions under review.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 15. Similarly, employees employed on short term contract for a period not exceeding 12 months or employed on work charge basis or paid from working contingency, were excluded from the term employee of NADRA, as defined in the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002, while the petitioner is regularized employee of NADRA and is seeking anti-dated regularization; thus, this writ petition is held maintainable in view of the statutory status of NADRA and the statutory rules regulating service of its employees.