Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
SUHAIL ISHAQ VS SH MAHMOOD AHMAD
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD SHABBIR ABU TALIB VS DR ABDUL AZIZ BANTWA RESPODNENTS
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD SHABBIR ABU TALIB VS DR ABDUL AZIZ BANTWA
Summary: Summary pending.
KHALID SAEED VS MRS SHAMIM RIZVAN
Summary: Summary pending.
MST SHARIFAN BIBI VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY CIVIL SECRETARIATLAHORE OTHERSS VS MESSRS PACE PAKISTAN LIMITEDLAHORE
Summary: (a) West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958)----S. 10(2):
Revisional power of Additional Director General---Competence---Refund of excess property tax.
The Additional Director General, Excise and Taxation Punjab, revised the valuation of the respondent's property for property tax purposes, reducing it significantly. This decision resulted in an order for the refund of excess property tax paid by the respondent. The High Court upheld the competence of the Additional Director General to issue the revisional order under S. 10(2) of the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. The petitioners' challenge to the legality of the order was rejected, with the High Court directing the refund of the excess amount within one month.
(b) West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958)----Review powers---Non-existence of review provisions in the Act:
The petitioners contended that the review of the revisional order by the Executive District Officer (EDO) was lawful. The respondent countered, arguing that the Act does not provide for a review mechanism, and the attempt to initiate a review was solely to delay or deny the refund. The Supreme Court refrained from commenting on the review's legality, as the matter was pending adjudication before the EDO. However, the Court directed the EDO to decide the review petition expeditiously while carefully examining the availability of review powers under the Act.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)----Art. 185(3):
Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave---No infirmity in High Court's judgment.
The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court’s judgment, which had upheld the validity of the revisional order and directed the refund of the excess amount. Leave to appeal was refused, and the High Court’s decision was affirmed.
-----Disposition:
Petition dismissed. EDO directed to decide the review petition by 15th July 2003.
ZIA GHAFOOR PIRACHA VS CHAIRMAN BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE SECONDARY EDUCATION RAWALPINDI
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS DIRECTOR GENERAL PAKISTAN RANGERSSINDH
Summary: Summary pending.
KHALID KHAN KHATAK ASP SADAR RAWALPINDI VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTICORRUPTION PUNJAB
Summary: Summary pending.
JAM SOBHA VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.