Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: The case involved several appeals and petitions concerning questions of taxation under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Key issues include the applicability of minimum tax under Section 80D of the Ordinance of 1979 and Section 113 of the Ordinance of 2001, the treatment of 'services rendered' under the Presumptive Tax Regime, and the interpretation of 'supply of goods' under Section 50(4)(a) of the Ordinance of 1979. The court analyzed whether minimum tax should be levied on aggregate turnover from all sources, including receipts covered by other sections of the tax laws. Additionally, it deliberated on whether certain types of income, such as income under the Presumptive Tax Regime, should be excluded from the calculation of turnover for tax purposes.The court dismissed certain appeals and petitions based on its interpretation of the law and the facts of each case.

Summary: The phrase wilful default was statutorily defined for the first time on 3rd February 2000, by National Accountability Bureau (Amendment) Ordinance, 2000, therefore, it is from this date that it is to be given effect as per the definition.----Muhammad Asif Saigol (MAS) was the Chief Executive of several textile companies when complaints were filed against him under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 (NAB Ordinance). The complaints alleged wilful default in repayment of loans by the companies to financial institutions. MAS contended that the definition of wilful default was not applicable to him as it was introduced after the alleged defaults occurred and that the defaults were a common business risk. Legal precedents were cited to argue that wilful default requires intentional and deliberate refusal to pay, not mere inability to pay. The Additional Prosecutor General of NAB argued that MAS's convictions were valid and that wilful default, as per the amended NAB Ordinance, did not require mens rea (intent) but only the failure to repay loans as per agreements. The court examined the original NAB Ordinance and subsequent amendments, including the requirement for a report from the State Bank of Pakistan before NAB investigations, which wasn't obtained in MAS's case. Legal precedents highlighted the distinction between negligence and wilful default, emphasizing the intentional aspect of wilful default. Waqar Azim v State (2002 YLR 1811): Upheld judgments distinguishing between negligence and wilful misconduct.Munir Ahmed v State (2004 P Cr. L J 2012): Emphasized the need for determining outstanding liabilities before seeking recovery. Ismail Dossa v Monopoly Control Authority (PLD 1984 Karachi 315): Defined wilful failure as intentional, deliberate, and wrongful. Federation of Pakistan v Hasham Ali Shah (PLD 1954 Lahore 769): Differentiated between misconduct and wilful misconduct, requiring an intentional element.Arsalan Hafeez v Election Tribunal (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 355): Differentiated between misconduct and wilful misconduct, highlighting intentional conduct. Saadat Pervaz Sayan v Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab (2003 PLC (C.S.) 1277): Distinguished between negligence and wilful negligence, adding an element of bad faith. S. Sundaram v V. R. Pattabhiraman (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 582): Defined wilful default as intentional, deliberate, calculated, and conscious. The Queen v Senior ([1899] 1QB 283): Defined wilfully as deliberate and intentional action, not accidental. In its judgment, the court found that the prosecution failed to establish wilful default, ruling in favor of MAS. The court criticized the investigating officer's failure to gather evidence of wilful default and upheld the principle of granting the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The appellant, Abdul Qayoom, along with others, was being tried for offences under sections 302, 342, 147, 148, 149, 201, 202, and 34 of the Azad Penal Code (APC) by the District Criminal Court, Haveli Kahuta.The occurrence took place on 28th August 2013, involving the murder of two individuals. The appellant was arrested on 9th September 2013.The trial faced significant delays, with only 7 out of 33 witnesses' statements recorded over two years.The appellant filed for bail citing statutory delays exceeding two years. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to a revision petition in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Shariat Court, which was partially accepted?granting bail to another accused, Muhammad Shabir, but not to Abdul Qayoom, labeling him a dangerous, desperate, and hardened criminal.----Issues:Whether Abdul Qayoom should be granted bail on the ground of statutory delays in the trial.Whether Abdul Qayoom can be classified as a "dangerous, desperate, and hardened criminal" to deny him bail under the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that Abdul Qayoom should be granted bail.The Court found that the appellant was entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C., as the trial had not concluded within two years and there was no delay attributable to him.The Shariat Court's designation of Qayoom as a dangerous, desperate, and hardened criminal lacked substantiated evidence. The case against Qayoom was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily a delayed statement from a single witness, which was not deemed sufficient to label him as such.Previous case law indicated that to declare someone a hardened criminal, there must be substantive evidence considering the motive, role, and societal impact, which was not adequately presented in Qayoom's case. The appeal was accepted. The judgment of the Shariat Court was set aside, and Qayoom was ordered to be released on bail, provided he furnished a bail bond amounting to one million rupees with two sureties and a personal bond in the like amount.----Citations/Precedents:Irfan & another vs. State through Advocate-General and another (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2013, decided on 24.09.2013)Farzana Imtiaz vs. Tariq Hussain and another (Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2012, decided on 19.7.2013)Muhammad Siddique vs. Muhammad Behram and another [1998 SCR 146]Muhammad Aziz vs. the State [2000 SCR 1]Moundar vs. The State [PLD 1990 SC 934]

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.