Summary: Pending

Summary: (a) Judgment- -Scope-Judgment is an authority only in respect to what it decides, and only with regard to the proposition of law raised, in that case, and therefore point not argued before the Court cannot be considered to have been dealt with by its judgment. Quinn v. Leathern"1901 Appeal Case 495 at 506; Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem 1994 SCMR 2213 and Mst. Muhammadi and others v. Ghulam Nabi 2007 SCMR 765 ref. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)- -Ss. 2(27) & 3(2)-Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), S. 12(4)-Aerated water-Determination of value for the purposes of duty-Retail price-Scope-Excise duty in the context of S. 3(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S. 12(4) of Federal Excise Act, 2005, cannot be counted towards"retail price"-Law does not permit levy of excise duty on the amount of excise duty, yet to be 'charged', to be included in the"retail price". Question raised in the present case was whether the retail price as described by subsection (27) of section 2 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ("STA, 1990"), and subsection (4) of section 12 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 ("FEA, 2005"), respectively, includes the amount of excise duty leviable in terms of section 12 of FEA, 2005. A charge which is yet to be levied and realized on something (in the present case that something being"retail price"), cannot possibly be included in/or counted towards that very thing. Law does not permit levy of excise duty on the amount of excise duty, yet to be 'charged', to be included in the"retail price". Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others v. Messrs Lucky Cement and another 2007 PTD 1656 ref. There is yet another practical difficulty, rather an impossibility in the way of including excise duty in the retail price, as in terms of section 3 of FEA, 2005 excise duty is charged on"retail price". The same can therefore only be charged after"retail price"has been finally calculated/determined and has become known. Crystallization of"retail price"is therefore an essential prerequisite, and serves as a trigger for levying excise duty."Retail price"can therefore not include the levy itself and only such duties, charges and taxes which are applicable and already levied on the"retail price"prior to the charge under the FEA, 2005 can be included in the"retail price"for the purpose of such a charge. The word"duties" as employed in section 12(4) of FEA, 2005 cannot therefore be construed as referring to excise duty. [p. 773] C Charge of excise duty on notional excise duty is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. [p. 777] G PLD 2017 SC 99 and PLD 1976 Kar. 1238 ref. (c) Taxation- -Levy/charge/tax, imposition of-Scope-Tax, levy or charge can only be imposed under a clear mandate and sanction of law. PLD 2017 SC 99 ref. (d) Taxation- -Levy of tax-Scope-Measure of a tax must have a reasonable nexus with it, the subject matter, and that a tax cannot be levied on the basis of arbitrary valuation. 2015 SCMR 595 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ICA in Crl Org 140/2021; in WP 1106/2017, Service Matter, Appointment and Financial Benefit under assistance packagaes for families of government employees who die during service.

Summary: For transfer of bail petitions to one same Court.

Summary: District Judge has the power to withdraw a suit for cancellation of a negotiable instrument instituted under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1877, and entrust it to the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge where the recovery suit on the basis of same negotiable instrument is pending, in particular, when leave to defend has been granted by the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge. It is considered opinion of this Court that no definitive and straight-jacket formula could be laid down for consolidation of two suits and the same is to be decided on case to case basis because a blanket permission to consolidate every suit for cancellation of instruments with the suit for recovery under Order XXXVII would nullify and frustrate the very object of summary procedure envisaged under Order XXXVII. The consolidation ought not to be effected in such a way that it defeats the very purpose and intent of Order XXXVII. - "A.B.L. v. Khalid Mahmood" (2009 CLC 308) distinguished.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending