Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan
Mr.Justice Gulzar Ahmed
Honourable Chief Justice
Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh
Honourable Chairman I.T. Committe
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Latest Case Law (Approved For Reporting)
1 . Cr.J.A 83/2013 Muhammad Mithal Narejo V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149656 ]Against Order of Trial Court(Life)Read more
2 . Criminal Appeal 107/2011 Lal Bux @ Laloo Bangulani V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149657 ]Against Order of Trial Court(Life)Read more
3 . Cr.J.A 30/2014 Ghulam Abbas Magsi V/S The state Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149664 ]Against Order of Trial Court(Life)Read more
4 . Cr.J.A 43/2016 Sadique Ali Sabzoi V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149606 ]Against Order of Trial Court (Death Sentence)Read more
5 . Criminal Appeal 26/2016 Gulzar Ahmed Soomro V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149558 ]Against Order of Trial Court(Upto 7 Years)Read more
6 . Cr.J.A 46/2015 Abdul Hafeez @ Mumtaz Kalhoro & anothe V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149554 ]Against Order of Trial Court(A.T.C Death)Read more
7 . Cr.J.A 31/2020 Abdul Majeed Gaincho V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149553 ]Against Order of Trial Court(Narcotics Upto 7 Years)Read more
8 . Cr.Bail 424/2020 Wajid Pahore V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149400 ]Post Arrest BailRead more
9 . Cr.J.A 2/2014 Abdul Waheed Larik V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149367 ]Against Order of Trial Court(Life)Read more
10 . Cr.Bail 491/2020 Janib Jagirani V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149403 ]Post Arrest BailRead more
11 . Cr.Bail 651/2020 Bhagio Khan Bangulani & Others V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149402 ]BAIL BEFORE ARRESTRead more
12 . Cr.J.A 48/2018 Jhangal Dahani V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149200 ]Against Order of Trial Court (Death Sentence)Read more
13 . Criminal Appeal 49/2020 Muhammad Ali Abro V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-LRK - 149199 ]Against Order of Trial Court( Upto 7 Years)Read more
14 . Const. P. 3776/2012 K.E.S.C. Labour Union & Others V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149025 ]1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: - ???62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications. b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also. c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also.??? 2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law.Read more
Matter:IMPLEMENTATION
15 . Const. P. 3767/2015 United Human Right Commission V/S Fed. Of Pakistan and ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149026 ]1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: - ???62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications. b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also. c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also.??? 2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law.Read more
Matter:DIRECTION
16 . Const. P. 1511/2005 K.E.S.C Labour Union and others V/S Fed. of Pakistan and ors. Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149007 ]WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973 1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: - "62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications. b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also. c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also." 2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law.Read more
17 . Const. P. 3775/2012 K.E.S.C. Labour Union & Others V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149024 ]1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: - ???62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications. b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also. c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also.??? 2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law.Read more
Matter:IMPLEMENTATION
18 . Const. P. 3818/2015 Moulvi Iqbal Haider V/S Fed. Of Pakistan and ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149027 ]1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: - ???62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications. b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also. c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also.??? 2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law.Read more
Matter:DIRECTION
19 . Const. P. 3588/2019 M/s Gulf Enterprises V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149051 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
20 . Const. P. 3022/2019 M/s Osama Textile and Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149047 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
21 . Const. P. 4492/2018 M/s Fabtex International V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149031 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
22 . Const. P. 1704/2018 Al-Razzaq Fibres & Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149008 ]WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973 A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge" as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - "11.Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words " Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge", is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of "Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge"."Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
23 . Const. P. 8149/2018 M/s Fabrica V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149035 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
24 . Const. P. 2644/2019 M/s Ali Enterprises and Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149046 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
25 . Const. P. 3543/2019 M/s Waqas Umer and Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149049 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
26 . Const. P. 1596/2019 M/s Reliance Textile Industries V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149044 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
27 . Const. P. 8856/2018 Al Azeem Enterprises and Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149037 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
28 . Const. P. 5139/2017 Zia & Co. V/S FBR and Ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149028 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
29 . Const. P. 3284/2019 M/s United Ind & Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149048 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
30 . Const. P. 6544/2019 M/s Gul Enterprises V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149053 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
31 . Const. P. 4930/2018 M/s Khurram Agencies V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149033 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
32 . Const. P. 8855/2018 Muhammad Shakir and Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149036 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
33 . Const. P. 573/2019 M/s Gatron (Ind) Ltd V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149038 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
34 . Const. P. 1057/2019 M/s Ashfaq Ahmed V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149040 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
35 . Const. P. 756/2019 M/s Sanaullah Textile Mills V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149039 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
36 . Const. P. 1096/2019 M/s Salim Winding Works & Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149041 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
37 . Const. P. 3544/2019 M/s M.F Brothers & Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149050 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
38 . Const. P. 158/2020 M/s Western Silk Mills V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149054 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
39 . Const. P. 4216/2018 M/s Rizwan & Co. V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149030 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
40 . Const. P. 2643/2019 M/s Dacca Silk Mills V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149045 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
41 . Const. P. 3812/2019 M/s Bhuri Enterprises V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149052 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
42 . Const. P. 1469/2019 Hassan Jamal V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149043 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
43 . Const. P. 3261/2018 M/s M. Usman V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149029 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
44 . Const. P. 1779/2020 Pakistan Re-Insurance Co. Ltd V/S Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) and Ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 149201 ]ReasonsRead more
Matter:AGAINST ORDER
45 . Const. P. 994/2020 M/s. Guidance Schooling System Thr. M. Ashraf V/S Mst. Seema Mohsin and others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2021- SHC-KHI - 148747 ]Rent matter-- In view of the above, no illegality is found to have been committed by both courts below. Writ of certiorari against the order passed in rent jurisdiction can be exercised only if the order is beyond the jurisdiction or patently illegal, which is not the present case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine along with listed applications with no order as to costs.Read more
Matter:RENT MATTER
46 . Const. P. 5236/2020 Mrs. Farkhanda Sattar V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149111 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
47 . Const. P. 5306/2020 Muhammad Abdul Rasool V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149113 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
48 . Const. P. 5315/2020 Amjad Shaikh V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149116 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
49 . Const. P. 5025/2020 Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla V/S Deputy Commissioner I.R and Ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149009 ]WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973 A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - "13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
50 . Const. P. 5235/2020 Asad Sayeed V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149110 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
51 . Const. P. 5242/2020 Ubaid Hussain Akhtar V/S Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-III) and Ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149112 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
52 . Const. P. 5126/2020 Nazli Sohail V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149099 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
53 . Const. P. 5212/2020 Khalid Tabba V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149107 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
54 . Const. P. 5129/2020 Rehana Saigol V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149102 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
55 . Const. P. 5128/2020 Farkhunda Muslim V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149101 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
56 . Const. P. 5895/2020 Fariha Subhani V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149126 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
57 . Const. P. 5756/2020 Masood Ihsan V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149124 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
58 . Const. P. 5489/2020 Noor Ahmed V/S Asstt: Commissioner I.R and Ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149122 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
59 . Const. P. 5219/2020 Khaja Moinuddin V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149109 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
60 . Const. P. 5127/2020 Sohail Inam V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149100 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
61 . Const. P. 5894/2020 Faheem Ahmed Khan V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149125 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
62 . Const. P. 6216/2020 Muhammad Nadir Ali Khan V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149128 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
63 . Const. P. 5208/2020 Muhammad Munair V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149103 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
64 . Const. P. 5307/2020 Abbas Sayeed V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149114 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
65 . Const. P. 5327/2020 Muhammad Aamir V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149117 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
66 . Const. P. 5210/2020 Tariq Janoo V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149105 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
67 . Const. P. 5211/2020 Azneem Bilwani V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149106 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
68 . Const. P. 5924/2020 Shakeel Ahmed V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149127 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
69 . Const. P. 5218/2020 Ali Raza Gheewala V/S Deputy Commissioner I.R and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149108 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
70 . Const. P. 5314/2020 Bilal Ali Lakhani V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149115 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
71 . Const. P. 5209/2020 Ahmed Aman V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149104 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
72 . Const. P. 5328/2020 Muhammad Ibrahim V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149118 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
73 . Const. P. 5403/2020 Amina Faruque V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149120 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
74 . Const. P. 5333/2020 Muhammad Bakar V/S Asstt: Commissioner I.R and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149119 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
75 . Const. P. 5425/2020 Muhammad Ashraf V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149121 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
76 . Const. P. 5526/2020 Tariq Islam V/S Asst: / Deputy Commissioner I.R and Ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 149123 ]A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from ???the Non delegation Doctrine??? which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
77 . Const. P. 876/2020 Shakir Ali V/S NAB and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 148064 ]Both these petitions are allowed, however, with no order as to costs. Resultantly, the impugned orders of removal of the petitioners from service are hereby set aside and their cases are remanded back to the competent authority of NAB for holding regular inquiry against them after providing opportunity of hearing / representation to them strictly in accordance with law, which exercise shall be completed within three (03) months from the date hereof. Needless to say the question of granting back benefits to the petitioners shall depend upon the outcome of the inquiry to be held in pursuance of this judgment.Read more
Matter:SERVICE
78 . Const. P. 877/2020 Sarvech Shaikh V/S NAB and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 148065 ]Both these petitions are allowed, however, with no order as to costs. Resultantly, the impugned orders of removal of the petitioners from service are hereby set aside and their cases are remanded back to the competent authority of NAB for holding regular inquiry against them after providing opportunity of hearing / representation to them strictly in accordance with law, which exercise shall be completed within three (03) months from the date hereof. Needless to say the question of granting back benefits to the petitioners shall depend upon the outcome of the inquiry to be held in pursuance of this judgment.Read more
Matter:SERVICE
79 . Const. P. 3454/2017 Attaullah Bhutto V/S Province of Sindh & Ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 148087 ]We are not impressed with the analogy as put forward by him for the reasons that departmental action against the petitioner having been initiated during his service independently of a criminal case registered against him. Merely obtaining an acquittal order in a criminal case would not nullify the departmental proceedings at this stage after his retirement. Since PSB-I did not consider his case for promotion and in the meanwhile, he stood retired from service, no benefit of Rule 7-A of The Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, could be given to him after he retired from service in the year 2017--DismissedRead more
Matter:SERVICE
80 . Const. P. 5496/2020 Imkaan Welfare Organization V/S Province of Sindh and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 147969 ]Order passed by Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan in C.P. No.D-5496/2020 for the implementation of Sections 9 and 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 with regard to Juvenile Justice Committee.Read more
Matter:DIRECTION
81 . Const. P. 6071/2019 M/s Sawera Ind C.G.P.F & Oil Mills V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 147793 ]Effect of a contrary notification upon a statutory exemption.Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
82 . Const. P. 715/2018 M/s Cellandgene Pharmaceutical International V/S FOP & Ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 147683 ]Audit for successive tax years.Read more
Matter:INCOME TAX
83 . Const. P. 4890/2020 Garibdas V/S Govt. of Sindh and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 148191 ]It is directed that the Government of Sindh shall ensure that in future before convening the meeting of PSB and/or DPC for considering the cases for promotion of civil / Government servants, the department concerned shall provide the complete set of ACRs / PERs of the concerned officer to PSB / DPC well in advance so that the cases for promotion should be decided without any delay. It may be observed that if promotion of any civil / Government servant is deferred or delayed after passing of this order for want of ACR / PER, the Secretary of the department concerned, competent authority and all officials responsible for deferring or delaying the promotion shall be held personally responsible for defiance of the above direction of this Court. With the above observations and direction, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Let notice be issued for compliance to the Chief Secretary Sindh and the Secretaries of all the departments of the Government of Sindh.Read more
Matter:SERVICE
84 . Const. P. 2933/2014 M/s Lucky Cement Ltd V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, Karachi [SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 147608 ]Doctrine of ElectionRead more
Matter:TAX MATTER
85 . H.C.A 24/2018 Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. V/S M/s. Jawed Pervaiz Enterprises Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Arbitration Law
[SHC Citation: 2020- SHC-KHI - 146660 ]Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the Company can be considered as directions /instructions with a binding effect provided it is not violative of fundamental principles of lawRead more
Matter:AGAINST ORDER
86 . Cr.Bail 604/2020 Muneer Ahmed Lashari V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaBAIL BEFORE ARRESTRead more
87 . Cr.Bail 1143/2020 ABDUL QADIR @ CHAKAR S/O BERO KHAN SUNANI BULEDI V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, Karachi302, PPC - Murderous assault as defined in the section ibid draws no anatomical distinction between vital or non-vital parts of the human body. Once the triggered is pressed and the victim is effectively targeted, ???Intention or knowledge??? as contemplated by the section ibid is manifested; the course of a bullet is not controlled or steered by assailant???s choice nor can he claim any premium for a poor marksmanship - Bail declined.Read more
Matter:BAIL AFTER ARREST
88 . Const. P. 650/2021 Sikandar Ali Sial and Others V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiPSFLRead more
Matter:AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
89 . Cr. Acct. A.J.A 62/2018 SHEIKH EJAZ AHMED S/O SHAIKH BABU V/S THE STATE (NAB) Sindh High Court, KarachiAppeal against conviction - Corruption and corruption practices - Maintained - Sentence reduced.Read more
Matter:IMPRISONMENT UPTO 7 YEARS
90 . Cr.Acctt.A 32/2018 AZEEM SHAHAB S/O SHAHABUDDIN V/S THE STATE & ANOTHER Sindh High Court, KarachiAppeal against conviction - Corruption and corruption practices - Maintained - Sentence reduced.Read more
Matter:IMPRISONMENT UPTO 7 YEARS
91 . Const. P. 848/2021 M/s Gerry V/S NIRC & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiM/s. Gerry???s Dnata (Pvt.) Ltd.--Adverting to the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-company that the NIRC was not competent to summon the Vice President for his appearance in Court, prima facie this assertion is misconceived for the simple reason that the learned Bench of NIRC is competent under section 54 & 55(1)(iii)(a)(b)(c)(d) and 57(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 .Read more
Matter:AGAINST ORDER
92 . Cr.Rev 2/2021 Wazeer Ali Sangah V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaSet Aside OrderRead more
93 . Cr.Bail 480/2020 Shahid Khuhawar V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaShahid Khuhawar V/S The StateRead more
94 . Const. P. 8363/2018 Muhammad Shafiq V/S EOBI & others Sindh High Court, KarachiEOBIRead more
95 . Cr.Acctt.A 19/2019 MUHAMMAD SAJJAN MALLAH S/O MUHAMMAD HASHMIM V/S THE STATE THROUGH CHAIRMAIN NAB Sindh High Court, KarachiAppeal against conviction - Corruption and corrupt practicesRead more
Matter:IMPRISONMENT UPTO 7 YEARS
96 . Const. P. 1130/2020 Muhammad Sajjan Mallah V/S The State and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiPetition for post arrest bail - Corruption and corrupt practicesRead more
Matter:BAIL AFTER ARREST
97 . Const. P. 636/2021 Shahid Jamil and Others V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled person quotaRead more
Matter:DISABLE QUOTA
98 . Const. P. 1411/2018 Matloob Ahmed Shafiqui and Ors V/S The President ZTBL and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiCommutation--Before dilating upon the merits of the case; and, since the issue of pensionary and allied benefits and its calculation and recalculation is involved in the present proceedings; and, even before taking cognizance of the matter for enforcing the judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, we at the first instance deem it appropriate to direct the competent authority of respondent-bank to undertake the exercise of recalculation of the pensionary benefits of the petitioners including commutation of pension and interest accrued thereon as directed by the Hon???ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforesaid judgments, under rules and regulations as well as office memorandums as discussed supra. The comprehensive report has to be submitted by the respondent-bank within one (01) month from the receipt of the order of this Court.Read more
Matter:PENSION
99 . Criminal Appeal 49/2020 Muhammad Ali Abro V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaAgainst Order of Trial Court (Upto 7 Years)Read more
100 . Const. P. 7261/2017 Wazir Ali V/S Province of Sindh & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:APPOINTMENT
101 . Const. P. 1737/2020 Muhammad Raheel Siddiqui V/S Province of Sindh & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:APPOINTMENT
102 . Const. P. 8056/2017 Saddam Hussain & Ors V/S Province of Sindh & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:APPOINTMENT
103 . Const. P. 8779/2017 Syed Mumtaz Hussain and Ors V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:DISABLE QUOTA
104 . Const. P. 7090/2017 Atam Parkash Chanani & Another V/S Govt. Of Sindh & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:DIRECTION
105 . Const. P. 7359/2017 Nazar Ali V/S Province of Sindh & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:SERVICE
106 . Const. P. 2080/2018 Hafizullah & Ors V/S Province of Sindh and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:DISABLE QUOTA
107 . Const. P. 6209/2019 Muhammad Asghar Babar V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:APPOINTMENT
108 . Const. P. 1830/2020 Amjad Hussain & Ors V/S Province of Sindh & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:DISABLE QUOTA
109 . Const. P. 790/2018 Atam Parkash Chanani V/S GOS & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:APPOINTMENT
110 . Const. P. 3376/2018 Zafar Azeem & Ors V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:APPOINTMENT
111 . Const. P. 6528/2020 Muhammad Imran Sultan and Others V/S Province of Sindh and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:DIRECTION
112 . Const. P. 3978/2020 Waseem Ahmed V/S Province of Sindh & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDifferently abled personsRead more
Matter:DISABLE QUOTA
113 . Const. P. 2839/2017 Muhammad Azeem V/S Province of Sindh and otehrs Sindh High Court, Karachirecruitment process of Head Master/Head Mistress in BPS-17 and their participation in SPSC.Read more
Matter:SERVICE
114 . Const. P. 339/2021 Ghulam Haider V/S Province of Sindh & Ors Sindh High Court, Karachilaches--dismissedRead more
Matter:SERVICE
115 . Const. P. 1436/2019 M/s Ever Green Enterprises and Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiA Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ???Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge??? as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: - ???11. Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words ??? Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge???, is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect. (ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect. (iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners. (iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of ???Federal Government???, and not that of the ???Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge???.???Read more
Matter:SALES TAX
116 . Cr.Bail 418/2020 Shahban Jhangwani And Others V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaBAIL BEFORE ARRESTRead more
117 . Cr.Bail 590/2020 Ahsan Chandio V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaPost Arrest BailRead more
118 . Const. P. 268/2021 Shah Khan V/S Federation of Pakistan Sindh High Court, Karachiappointment of Chairman Federal Public Service CommissionRead more
119 . Cr.Bail 485/2020 Abdul Manan Kamboh V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaPost Arrest BailRead more
120 . Cr.Misc. 96/2020 Shah Bux Pahore V/S SHO P.S Naperkot & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana22 A-BRead more
121 . Cr.Bail 2/2021 Shafiq-ur-Rehman V/S Directorate of Special Custom Sindh High Court, KarachiSpecial Criminal Bail ApplicationRead more
122 . Suit 23/2021 GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS Sindh High Court, KarachiKCR and Pakistan Railway dispute on land matterRead more
Matter:SUIT FOR DECLERATION
123 . Const. P. 6339/2018 Muhammad Habeen Fatani V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiExit from Pakistan {Control} Ordinance, 1981Read more
Matter:E.C.L.
124 . Const. P. 6070/2020 Sana Jabeen Khan V/S Chairman SPSC Sindh High Court, KarachiBefore parting with this case, it may be observed that in order to avoid unnecessary complications and litigation as well as hardship and embracement to the applicants, such applicants should not be allowed by SPSC to participate in any competitive process who do not fulfill the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement. The application forms of such candidates should be rejected in the first instance so that the question of their written test etc. does not arise at all. Such vigilance on the part of SPSC shall ensure participation of only eligible candidates in the competitive process. Let notice be issued to the Chairman SPSC for compliance. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the above observations and direction with no order as to costs.Read more
Matter:INTERVIEW
125 . Const. P. 5147/2019 Muhammad Yaqoob Mandhro V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiNational Accountability Ordinance, 1999Read more