Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 3, 7, 21, 73 & 47---Input tax adjustment---Blacklisted suppliers---Blacklisting of suppliers subsequent to transaction with taxpayer---Effect and scope---Department impugned order of Appellate Tribunal whereby refund on invoices was allowed to the taxpayer---Contention of the Department was that suppliers of taxpayer were blacklisted and suspended units, therefore, invoices issued by them could not be used to claim input tax adjustment/refund of sales tax--- Validity---Perusal of order of Appellate Tribunal revealed that finding of fact had been recorded to the effect that taxpayer had made payments to its suppliers through banking channels by complying with provisions of S. 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and that at the time of making such transactions, said suppliers were enjoying their status as operative persons having normal behavior and no dispute existed as to the fact that refund was denied only for the reason that the suppliers were only subsequently blacklisted---Validly issued invoices by suppliers when such suppliers were active and registered, would not be effected by subsequent blacklisting of such suppliers unless invoices in question were specifically declared fake through a speaking order after hearing the parties and if the same had a direct nexus with subsequent blacklisting of the said supplier(s)---Refund, in the present case, therefore could not have been denied to the taxpayer and order of Appellate Tribunal could not be interfered with---Reference was answered accordingly. ---- Background: The Commissioner Inland Revenue filed a reference against the order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which allowed sales tax refund to Messrs Amtex Ltd. on invoices issued by suppliers who were subsequently blacklisted or suspended. The Department contended that since the suppliers were blacklisted, the invoices issued by them could not be used to claim input tax adjustment or refund of sales tax. ----Issues: 1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing a sales tax refund on invoices issued by suppliers who were later blacklisted or suspended. ---2) Whether the blacklisting of suppliers can operate retrospectively, affecting invoices issued before the blacklisting. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Input Tax Adjustment on Invoices of Blacklisted Suppliers: The court held that since the suppliers were active and registered at the time the transactions occurred, the subsequent blacklisting of these suppliers did not affect the validity of the invoices. The Tribunal’s finding of fact was that the taxpayer had complied with the legal provisions by making payments through banking channels, and at the time of these transactions, the suppliers were in good standing. Therefore, the refund could not be denied based on the suppliers' later blacklisting or suspension. Effect of Blacklisting on Prior Transactions: The court reaffirmed the principle that valid invoices issued by suppliers when they were active and registered cannot be invalidated by their subsequent blacklisting unless the invoices are specifically declared fake through a speaking order. The court referenced the decision in Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Tariq Poly Pack (Pvt.) Ltd. (2015 PTD 2256), which held that retrospective application of blacklisting to prior valid transactions is not permissible unless those invoices are explicitly found to be fraudulent. ----Citations/Precedents: Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Tariq Poly Pack (Pvt.) Ltd. (2015 PTD 2256) Outcome: The court dismissed the reference application, affirming the Tribunal’s order. It was held that the taxpayer was entitled to the sales tax refund as the suppliers were registered and active at the time of the transactions, and the subsequent blacklisting of those suppliers did not affect the validity of the transactions or the invoices. The questions raised by the Commissioner Inland Revenue were answered in favor of the respondent (Messrs Amtex Ltd.) and against the applicant (Inland Revenue Department).

Summary: S.302,34 PPCDelay in lodging FIR, night occurrence,wants further inquiry (Bail allowed)

Summary: S.20,28,Art 148 Limitations Act:In usufructuary mortgage,receipt of produce/rent,give fresh period of limitation

Summary: Art.148 of Limitation Act,1908 is not to operate,in regard to mortgaged property,even after lapse of 60 years

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.PMDC Regulation, 2011.. Promotion... Explanatory regulations cannot be given overriding effect on basic rules.

Summary: The petitioners availed the benefit of Golden Handshake and thereafter re-employed on contract basis in terms of agreement under section 2(1)(b) of KPK Civil Servants Act 2005,they are not civil servants, hence,cannot regularized,even under regularization Act,2009.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VII, R. 11(d), O. I, R. 10(3), (4) & O. VI, R. 17---Plaint, rejection of---Pleadings, amendment of---Amendment of plaint under O. I, R. 10(4), C.P.C. would not attract provision of O. VII, R. 11(d), C.P.C.---Defendant filed application under O. I, R. 10, C.P.C. to be joined as defendant in the suit, which was accepted by Trial Court, and plaintiff was, therefore, required to amend the plaint under O. I, R. 10(4), C.P.C.---Defendant, subsequently, filed another application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., seeking rejection of amended plaint on ground that plaintiff had made certain averments in the plaint without first seeking permission under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C., which was allowed by Trial Court and amended plaint was rejected---Appellate court, setting aside order of rejection, remanded the case holding that provision of O. VII, R.11, C.P.C. did not apply to the plaint amended under O. I, R. 10(4), C.P.C.---Validity---Amended plaint in question was not barred by any law, nor had defendant referred to any law to declare that the same was hit by such law---Provisions of O. I, R. 10, C.P.C. and O.VI, R. 17, C.P.C. operated in quite different circumstances---Provision of O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. were not applicable to facts of present case---Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.