Note: The figures in the following table only show the number of important Judgements/Orders uploaded on this site. It does not reflect total disposal of the Hon'ble Judges.
Apex Court: Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan:
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S.No. | Citation | Case No. | Case Year | Parties | Bench Type | Order/Judgment | Order_Date | A.F.R | Head Notes/ Tag Line | Bench | Apex Court | Apex Status |
| 1 | Const. P. 952/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Mumtaz Ali Rajpar & Brothers (Petitioner) VS POS & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 25-APR-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.3667/2019 Ghulam Ali v. Federation of Pakistan to be served thr. Secretary Interior Ministry, Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 2 | 2020 CLC 1173 | H.C.A 381/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Muhammad Jamil (Appellant) VS Mst. Waheeda Aslam & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 19-JUL-19 | Yes | It is plaintiff (respondent No.1) who has come for execution of decree of money. Now money decree was matured only on account of her relinquishment of share in the immovable property being auctioned. Had she not relinquished her share in the property, her money decree would not have been passed. The property which she relinquished was auctioned for her money decree | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.527-K/2019 Mst: Waheeda Aslam and others v. Muhammad Jamil and others,C.P.592-K/2019 Ali Sufyan and another v. Muhammad Jamil and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed |
| 3 | Const. P. 1046/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Ashfaq Muhammad Awan and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 24-JUL-20 | Yes | A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, has pronounced the judgment on 24.07.2020 in the case of Muhammad Ayaz Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan & others (along with C.P.No.D-1046/2019), whereby, Members of the Establishment of Sindh High Court and Members of Establishment of the Establishment of sub-ordinate judiciary of Province of Sindh, expressed their grievance against withholding of income tax by the Accountant General Sindh on the amounts paid towards Judicial Allowance and Special Judicial Allowance by treating the same as part of their salary income chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Hon'ble bench of Sindh High Court has been pleased to allow both these petitions in the following terms:- "In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that amount of judicial allowance and special judicial allowance paid to the Members of establishment of Sindh High Court as well as to the Members of the establishment of sub-ordinate judiciary of Province of Sindh falls within the exclusion in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, therefore, not part of their taxable salary income, hence, not chargeable to Tax or deduction under Section 149 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Accordingly, withholding of income tax on the aforesaid amounts is hereby declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. Consequently, both the constitutional petitions are allowed along with listed applications. Respondents are directed not to withhold any amount of income tax from judicial allowance and special judicial allowance of the Members of establishment of Sindh High Court as well as the Members of establishment of sub-ordinate judiciary in Province of Sindh. The amounts already deducted from the salary of the Members of establishment of Sindh High Court as well as to the sub-ordinate judiciary, shall be refunded by the FBR, on their filing refund applications in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of such claims." | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.485-K/2020 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Ashfaq Muhammad Awan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 4 | 2022 PTD 390, 2022 PTCL 396 | Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 104/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Commissioner I-R Zone-I (Applicant) VS M/s. Faizan Steel (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-OCT-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.1679-K/2021 Commissioner Inland Reveue v. M/s. Faizan Steel,C.A.442/2023 Commissioner Inland Reveue v. M/s. Faizan Steel Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded,Disposed | |
| 5 | Const. P. 8807/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Imran Ind (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 05-JUL-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 6 | Const. P. 2636/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2015 | M/S Thatta Cement Company (Petitioner) VS Ghulam Muhammad and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-SEP-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio(Author) | ||||
| 7 | Const. P. 6599/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2014 | M/s Lucky Cement (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and ORs (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 20-DEC-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.21/2022 Lucky Cement Limited, Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Revenue Division, Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and Revenue, Islamabad and another,C.A.318/2022 Lucky Cement Limited, Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Revenue Division, Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and Revenue, Islamabad and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed | ||
| 8 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 36/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Quick Contractors & Traders (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 24-DEC-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | C.P.519-K/2022 The Collector of Customs v. M/s. Quick Contractors & Traders Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 9 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 493/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS Abdul Sattar & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 10-MAY-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 10 | R.A (Civil Revision) 68/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2014 | Mir Abdul Hussain Thr:his LRs. (Applicant) VS Govt:of Sindh and others. (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 02-FEB-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 11 | R.A (Civil Revision) 151/1996 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 1996 | Amjad Hussain and others (Applicant) VS Arif Ali Abbasi and others. (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 01-SEP-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 12 | R.A (Civil Revision) 69/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2014 | Mir Abdul Hussain Thr:his LRs. (Applicant) VS Govt:of Sindh and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 02-FEB-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 13 | R.A (Civil Revision) 145/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2005 | Pir Mohammad Sadiq (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 12-MAR-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 14 | Const. P. 1975/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Taj Munawar & Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 08-FEB-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 15 | H.C.A 162/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | Pakistan International Container Terminal Ltd. (Appellant) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 02-JUN-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 16 | H.C.A 234/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Attaullah & others (Appellant) VS Sanaullah & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-MAR-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.20-K/2019 Siraj Ahmed Mughal and others v. Sanaullah (decd) thr. his L.Rs and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 17 | Const. P. 1019/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Ayaz Khan & Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 24-JUL-20 | Yes | A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, has pronounced the judgment on 24.07.2020 in the case of Muhammad Ayaz Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan & others (along with C.P.No.D-1046/2019), whereby, Members of the Establishment of Sindh High Court and Members of Establishment of the Establishment of sub-ordinate judiciary of Province of Sindh, expressed their grievance against withholding of income tax by the Accountant General Sindh on the amounts paid towards Judicial Allowance and Special Judicial Allowance by treating the same as part of their salary income chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Hon'ble bench of Sindh High Court has been pleased to allow both these petitions in the following terms:- "In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that amount of judicial allowance and special judicial allowance paid to the Members of establishment of Sindh High Court as well as to the Members of the establishment of sub-ordinate judiciary of Province of Sindh falls within the exclusion in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, therefore, not part of their taxable salary income, hence, not chargeable to Tax or deduction under Section 149 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Accordingly, withholding of income tax on the aforesaid amounts is hereby declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. Consequently, both the constitutional petitions are allowed along with listed applications. Respondents are directed not to withhold any amount of income tax from judicial allowance and special judicial allowance of the Members of establishment of Sindh High Court as well as the Members of establishment of sub-ordinate judiciary in Province of Sindh. The amounts already deducted from the salary of the Members of establishment of Sindh High Court as well as to the sub-ordinate judiciary, shall be refunded by the FBR, on their filing refund applications in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of such claims." | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.484-K/2020 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Muhammad Ayaz Khan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 18 | 2022 PTD 402 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 418/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS Abdul Ghafoor (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-OCT-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | |||
| 19 | 2022 PTD 363 | Const. P. 6544/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | M/s Drive Line Motor Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Othes (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-NOV-21 | Yes | Since section 138 deals with the frustrated cargo and Rule 86 has defined what frustrated cargo would be. It is thus one which will brought into customs station by reason of inadvertence or misdirection or where consignee is untraceable or has dishonoured his commitments and the consignor wishes to have it re-shipped to him. Since the consignee has refused or dishonored his commitments, the consignor immediately acted upon by moving an application for re-export on 17.04.2018 and that is exercised under Rule 88 of the ibid Rules. There was no occasion for the Collector of Customs to have avoided or discarded the application of the consigner for the re-export of the vehicle as it was and is within the definition of frustrated cargo and permission ought to have been followed in terms of Rule 89 on Collector being satisfied which he should under the relevant circumstances of the case as in our view the vehicle came out as a frustrated cargo. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||
| 20 | 2022 PTD 576 | Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 2/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | IMS Health Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. (Applicant) VS Commissioner-II SRB (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 29-NOV-21 | Yes | It is the consideration in money including federal and provincial duties and taxes which constitute value of taxable services which the person provides against the consideration but it excludes the amount of sales tax under the ibid Act. The Tribunal was of the view that the invoices generated on the amount includes the expenses/expenditures plus 10-% service charges and is to be taken as one revenue component for services rendered. The Tribunal is also of the view that in certain cases there is specific rule in Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 providing for valuation of a particular service and providing a certain minimum threshold and also any exemption and exception. However, Tribunal considered that since no rule is available for the category of Business Support Services full value of generated invoices shall be taken as the value of services rendered or provided in terms of provisions of Section 5 ibid. --Primarily value of service charges for the purposes of Act 2011 is governed by the value of service agreed upon between the provider and the recipient as the market itself is so competitive that nothing could defeat the actual amount being declared to be taxed. However, in case such understanding of value of service is doubtful as it does not disclose correct value of service, it was open for the department to have considered the open market price of such service as required to be determined under section 6 of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 which is not the case here. Two provisos to Section 5 deals the situation of value of service. In a situation where the consideration of value of service is in kind or is partly in kind and partly in money, value of service shall mean open market price2 excluding the amount of sales tax under Act 2011. Similarly in case where service is provided by provider to a recipient who is an associated person and the value is not the actual value of service, then the value of service which is being provided by a provider to a non-associated person shall be counted and in case no consideration is claimed or value is lower than it is being provided by other persons, the value of service shall be of open market. In principle the department has not disputed the value of services rather the department is of the view that reimbursed amount or the amount of maintenance/expenses incurred should be made part of the value of the service. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||
| 21 | 2022 PTD 984, 2022 SBLR Sindh 1536 | Const. P. 5791/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Zona Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 10-JAN-22 | Yes | There is no space of interpretation provided by petitioners in relation of Foreign Exchange Manual read with Section 154 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Similarly, there is no applicability of extra territorial operation for giving effect to Article 141 of the Constitution. Hence we conclude accordingly. The doctrine of occupied field would also not come into play as we are of the view that Entry 49 of Federal Legislative List, as structured after 18th Amendment, empowers the province to legislate on the subject under consideration. The legislative powers defined under Articles141, 142 and 143 of the Constitution have not been violated while encompassing services rendered by indenters to be within the frame of SSTA 2011 and find its place within exclusion defined in Entry 49 of Federal Legislative List of Fourth Schedule of Constitution. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.917/2022 Zona Pakistan (Private) Limited Karachi v. Province of Sindh, through the Secretary, Karachi and others,C.A.4024/2022 Zona Pakistan (Private) Limited Karachi v. Province of Sindh, through the Chief Secretary, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Leave Granted, CMA Notice, Relist with connected appeals after vacations at Islamabad,Disposed Disposed of |
| 22 | 2022 PTD 866, 2024 SBLR Sindh 409, 2022 PTCL 253 | Const. P. 5107/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Atlas Honda Ltd (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 18-FEB-22 | Yes | Sectoral benchmark ratios are therefore figures for various business metrics that must be used by the Commissioner to determine taxable income for a taxpayer where a taxpayer has been lawfully selected for audit but is unable to provide the relevant information, sufficient explanation for the record. Sectoral benchmark ratio does not concern with sectoral audit selection. It only empowers the Commissioner on an event when a taxpayer has failed to furnish record or documents including books of accounts or has furnished incomplete record or books of accounts or is unable to provide sufficient explanation regarding defect in relation to the documents or books of accounts on the basis of an independent procedure of Section 177 of Ordinance 2001. It is at this stage when the guidelines of sectoral benchmark ratios, as prescribed by the Board, could be adhered to. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.680-K/2022 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) v. Atlas Honda Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed |
| 23 | Const. P. 10/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Mehmood Ali (Petitioner) VS Fedration of Pakisran & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-SEP-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 24 | W.T.C. 236/2005 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2005 | Commissioner of Income Tax (Petitioner) VS Sindh Steel Corporatoin Pvt.,Ltd., (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 12-MAY-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 25 | Const. P. 2165/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Sajid Plastic Factory (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 03-JUN-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.900-K/2022 The Collector of Customs v. M/s. Sajid Plastic Factory & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 26 | R.A (Civil Revision) 162/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2007 | Haji Muhammad Zaman and anor (Applicant) VS Mukhtiarkar Revenue & other (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 06-NOV-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 27 | Const. P. 5106/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Zaheer Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Zafar Abbas & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-APR-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 28 | Criminal Appeal 37/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2023 | Khurram Ali (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 30-AUG-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | ||||
| 29 | Const. P. 8633/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Ghulam Ali Bhatia (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 09-OCT-20 | Yes | 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 Mahmood A. Khan, has pronounced the judgment on 09.10.2020 in the case of Ghulam Ali Bhatia & others v. Federation of Pakistan & others (along with connected petitions), whereby, the petitioners have expressed their grievance against impugned amendment in SRO 583/2017 dated 01.07.2017, for being discriminatory, as according to petitioners, the concession and reduction in payment of duty and taxes to the Ship Breaking Industry in respect of re-rollable and re-meltable scrap is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, whereas, a declaration has been sought to the effect that petitioners, who are the importers and manufacturers of re-rollable and re-meltable scrap, may be given the similar concession/reduction in tax liability as according to the petitioners, they fall within the same class of persons. The aforesaid petitions have been dismissed by the Divisional Bench of this Court while holding that petitioners, who are importers of re-rollable and re-meltable scrap are covered under PCT Heading 7204.4910, whereas, ship (vessel) imported by the Ship Breaking Industry are covered under PCT Heading 8909.0000, hence cannot be treated at par. It has been further held that through impugned amendment, reduction of tax liability has been granted as an incentive for the revival of ship breaking industry pursuant to policy decision, whereas, there seems no legal impropriety in the impugned amendment. No additional liability or burden has been created through impugned amendment, in violation of constitutional provisions or the law, therefore, the allegation of discrimination amongst the same class of person is otherwise misconceived. Reliance has been placed in the case of Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1997 SC 582), wherein, it has been held as under:- "(vi) That the tests of the vice of discrimination in a taxing law are less rigorous. If there is equality and uniformity within each group founded on intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law, the Constitutional mandate that a law should not be discriminatory is fulfilled." | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.1482-K/2021 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) v. Ghulam Ali Bhatia Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 30 | 2022 PTD 245 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 335/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS Forte Impex Lahore (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 25-OCT-21 | Yes | Simply mentioning that there is danger of removal of goods is not sufficient. The officer must state grounds which justify apprehension of danger of such removal and so also information that he received from an individual having name and that the concerned party has taken steps or about to take steps for the removal of the goods. Nothing of such sort is mentioned in the under considered warrant allegedly issued under section 163 of Customs Act, 1969. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||
| 31 | 2022 PTD 205, 2022 PTCL 400 | Const. P. 8297/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Louis Dreyfus Co. Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS F.B.R & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 02-NOV-21 | Yes | the goods which have already been subjected to sales tax under the previous regime and were in stock by 30.6.2019 and to be supplied after the effected date of the standard regime would be subjected to input tax adjustment under standard regime to save the goods from double / increased incidence of tax. Several sectors have been accommodated by the FBR such as steel sector, oil and ghee sector etc., but specifically the bulk importers of edible oil were not given this fair opportunity to maintain equality. Thus STGO No.105/2019 in its true spirit be applied in the case of the petitioner in relation to a stock for which stock report has been filed in terms of FBRs letter dated 09.7.2019. The manual returns thus filed in terms of the orders of this Court shall be taken into consideration in view of the above, wherein adjustment of the stock, as mentioned above is claimed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||
| 32 | Const. P. 984/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2021 | Munawar Ali & others (Petitioner) VS Umar Daraz & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-AUG-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio(Author) | ||||
| 33 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 125/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | The Collector of Customs, (Enforcement) Karachi (Applicant) VS M/s. Hassan Trading Company Karachi & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-APR-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.2185/2022 The Collector of Customs (Enforcement), Customs House, Karachi v. M/s Hassan Trading Company Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn | ||
| 34 | Const. P. 3601/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Pakistan Stock Exchange (Petitioner) VS Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 27-JAN-22 | Yes | Stock Exchange is a commercial organization and is engaged in a business of providing services for the trading of securities. As per definition of the term Stock Exchange it is a market place where facilities for trading of securities are provided. The surplus (receipts over expenses) is distributed regularly as dividend amongst the shareholders. Its shareholders taking part in trading activities as brokers derive profit. Even before demutualization the members of stock exchange were entitled to trading on stock exchange and were also provided services as brokers; they have established their offices and solicit business and use their membership for earning income therefore economic and commercial activities were the core activities of the erstwhile members and also the present TRE holders (trading right entitlement). Stock exchanges entertain applications from individuals and corporate entities to issue them such trading certificates for their economic/business activity. The stock exchange lacks the important attribute of lack of commerciality of a members club for application of the doctrine of mutuality | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.775/2022 Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited, Karachi v. Sindh through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 35 | R.A (Civil Revision) 146/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2005 | Ali Bux (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 13-APR-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 36 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 20/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Collector of Customs MCC (Applicant) VS M/s HKL Traders, Peshawar (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-APR-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 37 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 12/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | The Collector, Model Customs Collectorate (Applicant) VS Shafi Muhammad & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 24-MAY-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.883-K/2022 Collector of Customs v. Shafi Muhammad Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 38 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 64/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Director DG I & I (Customs) (Applicant) VS M/s. Digicom Trading (Pvt) Ltd. & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-APR-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 39 | Cr.J.A 51/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cr A D 29/2021 | 2021 | Mst. Rado @ Ladoni (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 10-OCT-23 | Yes | Life Imprisonment | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | |||
| 40 | Const. P. 462/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Mst. Shahar Bano (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-MAR-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 41 | Conf.Case 5/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2021 | VERO (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 10-OCT-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | ||||
| 42 | Suit 831/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | MS. SHEHAR BANO ALI (Plaintiff) VS SYED MEHDI RAZA ALI & OTHERS (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 20-JUL-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 43 | Const. P. 1497/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Nasir Kamal (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 03-JUN-21 | Yes | PNSC is hereby directed to pay all the post-retirement benefits to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law without fail within fifteen (15) days and to submit compliance report to this Court through MIT-II within seven (07) days thereafter. For future as well as for cases pending for calculation and/or payment of post-retirement benefits, PNSC is further directed to ensure compliance of the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court in Haji Muhammad Ismail Advocate (supra) and Province of Punjab, through Conservator of Forest, Faisalabad (supra) in letter and spirit The petition is allowed in the above terms with costs. | Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.1089-K/2021 Pakistan National Shipping Corporation through its Chairman v. Nasir Kamal & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 44 | 2022 PTD 94 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 203/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | M/s. Universal Enterprise (Applicant) VS The Customs Appellate Tribunal & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-OCT-21 | Yes | The amount of remittance may not be of any importance as the actual evidence is invoice which is relied upon. Hence the price actually paid could very conveniently be determined on the basis of such documents and notwithstanding the insertion / amendment made in the year 2017 as far as the second proviso to Section 25A is concerned, it is the amount, which is actually paid or payable which is considered as customs value for the goods when sold for export to Pakistan. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||
| 45 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 173/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: C.P. No.D-1000 of 2020 | 2019 | Collector of Customs MCC (Applicant) VS Syed Saddaruddin & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-APR-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 46 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 180/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Director of Customs Valuation (Applicant) VS M/s. Hanna Dairies, I-301 (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 23-MAY-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 47 | II.A. 13/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2005 | Ali Bux and others (Appellant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 12-MAR-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 48 | R.A (Civil Revision) 148/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2005 | Ali Bux (Applicant) VS Govt of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 13-APR-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 49 | Const. P. 1088/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-OCT-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 50 | Const. P. 203/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Fateh Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Altaf & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 08-SEP-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 51 | R.A (Civil Revision) 60/1993 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 1993 | Ali Nawaz and others (Applicant) VS Govt of Sindh and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 27-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 52 | Cr.J.A 5/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Rahib Ali (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 19-SEP-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | ||||
| 53 | Criminal Appeal 8/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Muhammad Ramzan (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 10-AUG-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | J.P.366/2023 Muhammad Ramzan & 2 others v. The State Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 54 | Cr.J.A 66/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cr. Jail Appeal D 67/2021 | 2021 | Badurddin (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 13-OCT-23 | Yes | The sole evidence of a material witness i.e. an eyewitness is always sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused if the same is confidenceinspiring and trustworthy and supported by another independent source of evidence because the law considers the quality of evidence and not its quantity to prove the charge. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | |||
| 55 | 2022 PTD 345, 2022 PTCL 415 | Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 94/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Commissioner inland revenue legal (Applicant) VS M/s filters pakistan pvt. ltd. (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-OCT-21 | Yes | Section 6 is pari materia to provisions for recovery of sale tax in respect of goods imported into Pakistan and time and manner shall be similar to that of recovery made under Customs Act, 1969. For the instant matter, for determining tax liability for the period 2011-12 limitation would perish by 30 June, 2017. Show cause notice was issued on 21.08.2017, after requisite period. Hence, any notice that was issued belatedly i.e. beyond the statutory requirement would have no bearing. --The consequential point that arises is whether a timeframe prescribed under Section 11(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for issuance of show-cause notice and after the expiry of timeframe prescribed, could be extended and/or resurrected a time barred cause under SRO 394(I)/2001 dated 21.05.2009 read with Section 74 of the Act, 1990. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||
| 56 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1233/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS Ms. Shazia Aman (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-DEC-21 | Yes | the Valuation Ruling such as one dated 10.07.2008 is not applicable as the valuation is to be issued on the basis of data of 90 days, either before or after, import in terms of Rule 107(A) of Customs Rules 2001. It has not been disclosed as to what the exact dates of the clearance of the goods are however subsequent valuation rulings, as reviewed, are of 15.07.2009 and 27.04.2010 respectively. In the absence of a clear date of clearance of the goods, the applicability of Valuation Ruling of 15.07.2009 and 27.04.2010 would be farfetched. Subsection 4 to Section 25A of Customs Act, 1969 was amended by Finance Act 2010 and assented on 30.06.2010 which was subsequent to the last ruling relied upon, hence by the time goods were cleared the regime of availability of 90% data, pre or post, was applicable as the applicability of last issued Valuation Ruling was introduced after 30.06.2010. Even the show-cause notice is silent as to the date of clearance of the goods. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | |||
| 57 | Const. P. 2184/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | M/s Sikandar & Co. (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 25-MAY-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 58 | Criminal Appeal 79/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cr.Appeal.No- D. 80/2022 | 2022 | Abdul Rasheed (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 13-OCT-23 | Yes | The sole evidence of a material witness i.e. an eyewitness is always sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused if the same is confidenceinspiring and trustworthy and supported by another independent source of evidence because the law considers the quality of evidence and not its quantity to prove the charge. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | |||
| 59 | Conf.Case 21/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Khemchand (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 12-OCT-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | ||||
| 60 | 2022 PTD 372, 2022 PTCL 420 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 948/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Abdullah Traders (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 22-OCT-21 | Yes | The goods declaration for the release of the consignments were filed prior to the insertion of sub section 4 of Section 25-A. Learned counsel for the applicant does not controvert these facts. Thus at the relevant time when the goods were cleared and/or goods declarations were filed, benefit of sub section 4 of Section 25-A was not available with the applicant for enforcing earlier Valuation Ruling dated 10.12.2007 which was reviewed on 1.9.2008 issued by the competent authority under Section 25-A and 25-D of the Act. Undoubtedly before insertion of sub section 4 the continuity of an earlier time lapsed Valuation Ruling could not have been enforced. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||
| 61 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 704/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Director DG I&I (Customs) (Applicant) VS Abdul Hameed Sheikh & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-21 | Yes | Had it been registered then perhaps the lawful presumption would have attached to such registered document but no such document constitute evidentiary value for the purposes of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as such data of all the aforesaid documents are different and distinguishable and are not reconcilable. The impugned orders, at least of the Tribunal, is not clear at all, particularly as to on what basis the vehicle is being released as the Motor Vehicle Tax Slip, Annexure-D to the memo of Reference, discloses the identity of the subject vehicle as Toyota Crown as against claimed vehicle Toyota Surf Jeep. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | |||
| 62 | 2022 PTD 779 | Const. P. 5596/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | M/s Zarif Khan Zai and Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-DEC-21 | Yes | Appendix "H" of Import Policy Order 2016 provides list of Pre-shipment Inspection Companies which includes M/s SGS whose certificate was provided by the respondent at the time of import. The Committee, allegedly constituted for compliance of Import Policy Order 2016, however considered the manufacturing year of the vehicle as 2006 on the basis of seatbelt, which perhaps is extraneous consideration; there is no serious challenge to the pre-shipment report of M/s SGS which is one of the preshipment inspection companies, as structured in Appendix "H" of Import Policy Order 2016. There has to be material of evidentiary value to form a different view than the one disclosed in M/s SGS certificate. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||
| 63 | 2022 PTD 290 | Const. P. 5113/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | OBS Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 17-NOV-21 | Yes | The impugned Circular has only restored the process of Section 170 of Ordinance 2001 for claiming refund only however actions which have already been taken thereunder are not open for a scrutiny at least under Section 221 of Ordinance 2001. For convenience however we may say that impugned Circular has prospective effect only. The adjustments made and allowed on the basis of Circular 4 cannot be subjected to provisions of Section 221 of Ordinance 2001. Applications made under section 170 of Ordinance 2001 for refund has the limitation of three years in terms of Section 170(2) i.e. deemed assessment or when tax was paid whereas deemed assessment itself could be subjected to amendment within five years of such deemed assessment hence the purpose which cannot be achieved under Section 170 is available under other provisions of Ordinance 2001. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.139-K/2022 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Sanofi-Aventis Pakistan Limited,C.P.70-K/2022 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) v. OBS Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed |
| 64 | Const. P. 7271/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Atlas Honda Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 22-APR-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.825-K/2022 The Collector of Customs v. M/s. Atlas Honda Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 65 | R.A (Civil Revision) 52/2002 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2002 | Wali Muhammad (Applicant) VS Muhammad Anwar (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 19-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 66 | Criminal Appeal 80/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cr Appeal NO-D-79/2022 | 2022 | FAIZ MUHAMMAD (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 13-OCT-23 | Yes | The sole evidence of a material witness i.e. an eyewitness is always sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused if the same is confidenceinspiring and trustworthy and supported by another independent source of evidence because the law considers the quality of evidence and not its quantity to prove the charge. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | |||
| 67 | Cr.J.A 122/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Khemchand (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-OCT-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | ||||
| 68 | 2022 PTD 1302 | Const. P. 3068/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | M/s Quick Contractor & Traders (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 24-DEC-21 | Yes | With this observation since Import Policy Order 2013 in its present form is exactly the same (for present purpose) as it stood in 2009, the clarification will be carried forward and the objections of the department insofar as the two dissimilar brands/makes i.e. crane and truck are concerned, would not be tenable. It was never the requirement of Import Policy Order 2013 that a truck-mounted crane should be factory-fitted or that the crane and truck should not be dissimilar as far as their makes are concerned. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||
| 69 | 2022 PTD 512 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 850/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Collector of Customs MCC (Preventive) (Applicant) VS Falak Jan & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-DEC-21 | Yes | Exemption is a privilege being enjoyed by diplomats and other dignitaries. If we trace history of last 50 years (though there were earlier SROs also), we come across initial SRO 53(I)/70 issued in exercise of powers available under Section 19 of Customs Act for all articles of household and personal effects including motor vehicles for the personal use by the ruler of any of the Gulf Sheikhdoms including vehicles imported by the UAE dignitaries which includes use and donations to welfare projects in Pakistan with conditions, such as articles will not be sold without prior consent of Central Board of Revenue, as it then was. It was persons specified SRO as it contained list of all such dignitaries with a table attached. Vehicle was imported in 2002 when SRO 506(I)/88 was active. It restricted the sale without prior permission of Federal Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to be routed through a formal application. In other event, no such vehicle could have been sold within two years of its importation to anyone other than Department of Investment Promotion or diplomatic representatives or mission of foreign government, except when the diplomatic representative by whom it was imported is transferred within two years of its importation and it has been used by him for not less than one year. So nothing beneficial could be achieved by respondent through said SRO | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.273/2022 Falak Jan v. The Collector of Customs Model Collectorate of Customs (Preventive) Custom House Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed |
| 70 | 2022 PTD 539 | Const. P. 4292/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | M/s Outdoorsman (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-DEC-21 | Yes | We do not find any necessity of an independent license from the federal government in presence of Import Policy Order, 2016 w.e.f. 14.6.2018 followed by Import Policy Order, 2020. The Import Policy Order, 2016 in terms of the subject in hand was amended by virtue of SRO No.772(1)/2018 on 14.6.2018 which provides that the individual license holders or arms dealership license holders [as issued by Home Department, Province of Sindh] are allowed to import arms and ammunition. It was clarified by Federal Government, Ministry of Commerce & Textile vide letter dated 06.09.2019 that the import of arms and ammunition does not require any import authorization from the Commerce Division Islamabad after issuance of SRO No.772(I)/2018 dated 14-06-2018. For convenience and ready reference, text of [i]. Letter dated 06.09.2019, [ii]. Section 6(1) and [iii]. Entry No.62 Part I of Appendix B of IPO, 2020 ---Section 4 of ibid Act 2013 is related to the license for the manufacture/sale of arms and ammunition which is not the case here. Section 5 deals with the import, export and transportation which for all intent and purposes means import and export within the province of Sindh and we, while read it down, do not find it to be ultra vires to the Constitution. It primarily concerns with the person who is brining into and taking out of Sindh or any of its districts, arms, ammunition or military stores of a firearm or convert an imitation firearm into a firearm unless a license has been issued in accordance with the provisions and rules thereunder. Similarly, in section 9&10 the words import and export are in relation to brining into and taking out of the province of Sindh and any of its districts and it does not mean import of any arms and ammunition from outside the country which is an independent subject of the federal government hence, we read down these provisions to be within frame of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and are not ultra vires the Constitution. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.245-K/2022 The Province of Sindh through Home Department Government of Sindh & others v. M/s. Outdoorsman & others,C.P.246-K/2022 Federal Board of Revenue & others v. M/s. Outdoorsman & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending ,Pending |
| 71 | Const. P. 8570/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Nisar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 16-DEC-21 | Yes | There is not an iota of evidence available to disagree with the observation of the Tribunal which ordered its (vehicles) release unconditionally however subject to verification of ownership. This being situation no question has arisen to deviate from the findings of the Tribunal and proposed question No.1 is answered in affirmative as the seizing agency has failed to comply with the provisions as required under section 26 of Customs Act, 1969 whereas the proposed questions No.2 is irrelevant for the purpose of declaring the subject vehicle as an smuggled vehicle. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | |||
| 72 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 447/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Collector of Customs MCC (Applicant) VS Fareed Ahmed Shager & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 29-OCT-21 | Yes | The initial burden is on the department, which has to be discharged in the light of registration book which carries all presumption to its genuineness and more important when copies of such documents were sent to customs department. In the absence of any record of the excise department at the time when the subject vehicle was transferred in favour of the respondents, no question arises out of the proceedings to cast any doubt over the bona fide transfer of the vehicle and hence no interference is required as far as impugned decision is concerned. The proposed questions, though not arises out of the Tribunals order, yet are deliberated upon to avoid any element of they (respondents) being condemned unheard | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | |||
| 73 | R.A (Civil Revision) 149/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2004 | Syed Ghulam Qadir Shah and anor (Applicant) VS Syed Habibullah Shah and other (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 10-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 74 | Const. P. 686/1995 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 1995 | Moule Dino and others (Petitioner) VS Matloob Hussain and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 14-SEP-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 75 | II.A. 1/1993 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 1993 | Ali Nawaz & Others (Appellant) VS Govt of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 27-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 76 | R.A (Civil Revision) 197/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2010 | Mst Mumtaz Jan Begum (Applicant) VS Muhammad Ismail & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 20-NOV-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 77 | Criminal Appeal 29/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Conf:Cases 05/2021 & Cr A S 51/2021 | 2021 | VEERO (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 10-OCT-23 | Yes | The medical evidence is in the nature ofsupporting, confirmatory or explanatory of the direct or circumstantial evidencein the sense the term is used in legal parlance for a piece of evidence that itself also has force to connect the accused person(s) with the commission of the offence | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | |||
| 78 | Const. P. 2242/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Tashkeel Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 04-MAY-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 79 | Cr.J.A 6/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Muhammad Mavia (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 19-SEP-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | ||||
| 80 | Cr.J.A 67/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cr. Jail Appeal D 66/2021 | 2021 | Allah Warayo (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 13-OCT-23 | Yes | The sole evidence of a material witness i.e. an eyewitness is always sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused if the same is confidenceinspiring and trustworthy and supported by another independent source of evidence because the law considers the quality of evidence and not its quantity to prove the charge. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | |||
| 81 | Cr.Appeal 29/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2021 | VEERO (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 10-OCT-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) | ||||
| 82 | Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 71/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Island Textile Mills Ltd. (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 22-FEB-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 83 | I.T.R 192/1993 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 1993 | Commissioner of Income Tax (Applicant) VS Metropolatan Steel Coporation Ltd (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-MAR-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 84 | H.C.A 27/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Muhammad Moeed Khan thorugh Attorney Saeed Khan (Appellant) VS Mst. Sehar Gul & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 16-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.536-K/2021 Muhammad Moeed Khan v. Mst.Sehar Gul & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 85 | Const. P. 5162/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Burshen LPG (Pakistan) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 20-JUN-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | ||||
| 86 | R.A (Civil Revision) 147/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2005 | Ali Bux & Ors (Applicant) VS D.D.O & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 13-APR-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||
| 87 | Const. P. 1385/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Shah & Sons (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 20-SEP-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author) | ||||