Past and closed transaction

Citation Name : 2019 PLC(CS) 1388 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : CHIEF COMMISSIONER INLAND TAX, through RTO,Zone-I, Federal Board of Revenue, Hyderabad
Side Opponent : GHULAM MUSTAFA MARI, EX-INSPECTOR, INCOME TAX, REVENUE DIVISION, FBR, HYDERABAD
Re-instatement, matter of---Res judicata---Past and closed transaction---Re-opening of a case in violation of judgment of the Supreme Court---Respondent was appointed in the Income TAX Department in the year 1994 on the recommendation of the Prime Minister Secretariat---Respondent was removed from service on 15.1.2003 for failure to produce his Bachelor Degree which was a condition of eligibility for appointment to his post---Respondent's recourse to departmental authorities, the Federal Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court failed to find any favour in the matter of his re-instatement---Supreme Court in its judgment held that the respondent without having the requisite qualification for the post, obtained appointment in an improper manner and consequently no right could be created in his favour to retain an illegal gain by mere efflux of time---Judgment of Supreme Court attained finality and thereafter the matter became a past and closed transaction inter se the parties to the lis---Again on the initiative of the Prime Minister Secretariat in the year 2008, case of respondent was re-opened and he was reinstated in service---After remaining in service for some 2½ years the respondent was informed in the year 2012 that he stood removed from service by restoration of the erstwhile penalty imposed on him on 15.1.2003---Federal Service Tribunal granted the respondent a right of de novo inquiry---Legality---Question was as to how the executive authorities could re-open a case after it had been decided finally by a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered inter parties in the respondent's case---Further action in the matter was barred by res judicata and the doctrine of past and closed transaction---Federal Service Tribunal's order for de novo inquiry was set aside in circumstances---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2019 PLD 297 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : HUMAN RIGHTS CASE NO.69229-P OF 2018
Side Opponent :
Ss. 3, 42, 42-A & 56(2)---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss.54, 59, 107, 118 & 123---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17---Punjab Urban Immovable Property TAX Act (V of 1958), S. 3---Punjab Local Government Act (XVIII of 2013), Ss. 2(hhh) & 6(2)---Human rights case---Matter regarding functioning of Patwaris, Kanungos and Tehsildars in urban areas of cities---Land/estate located within "rating areas" of the Punjab Urban Immoveable Property TAX Act, 1958, was exempted from the payment of land revenue and the revenue authorities---Patwaries, Kanungos, Tehsildars etc., were not authorized to enter mutations of alienation of such property etc., in their record---Revenue authorities were to refrain from any and all functions (to the extent that these were within the ambit of the (Punjab Urban Immoveable Property TAX Act, 1958) in the said areas particularly with regards to entering mutations, etc.---Supreme Court directed that all the urban areas to which the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 did not apply shall be governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908 for the purposes of transfer of property or devolution of any rights in property; that no oral mutations for the purposes of the transfer of property shall be valid in law in such urban areas (which had become part of settled areas including municipalities, towns, etc.); that the patwaarkhanas or revenue records could only be maintained for record keeping and not for the transfer of property under any of the modes recognized by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or any other law prevalent at the time; and, that since the revenue authorities of the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) were already compliant with the said directions, the findings and directions of the present case shall also apply to the Provinces of Sindh and Balochistan as well as that of the Federal Capital.

Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1712 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, QUETTA
Side Opponent : AL-HABIB ENTERPRISES AND ENGINEERING
Ss. 196, 193, 80 & 83---Reference to High Court---Appeal to Collector (Appeals)---Assessment and clearance of goods---Scope---Respondent had imported concrete transit mixer trucks which were cleared after submission of relevant documents---Customs authorities, on inquiry, came to know that years of manufacture of trucks were mis-declared---Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) issued show-cause notice and imposed penalty---Appellate Tribunal, on appeal, set aside the order passed by Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication)---Validity---Held; after assessment of leviable duty and TAX es under S. 80, Customs Act, 1969 and payment thereof and after clearing the vehicles under S. 83, Customs Act, 1969, the available remedy of filing appeal under S. 193, Customs Act, 1969 was not availed by the concerned officials of the Collectorate of Customs---Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) had no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 to issue show-cause notice and to pass order-in-original---No question of law having arisen out of the impugned judgments passed by Appellate Tribunal warranting interference by High Court under S. 196, Customs Act, 1969---References were dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2019 PTD 110 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS through Additional Collector Custom, MCC-Gwadar, Gaddani
Side Opponent : BYCO PETROLEUM PAKISTAN LTD.
Ss.19, 32(3), 79, 179 & 196---Sales TAX Act (VII of 1990), S.3(2)---Notification SRO No. 678(I)/2004 dated 07-08-2004---Import Policy Order, 2013, Para. 12(a)---Reference---Show-cause notice, issuance of---Temporary import for re-export---Submission of Bank guarantee---Scope---Tug boats were imported for offloading oil tankers and importer companies submitted corporate guarantees as same were to be re-exported---Customs authorities issued show-cause notices claiming that importer companies had violated provisions of Ss.32(3) & 79(1) of Customs Act, 1969---Appellate authority directed customs authorities to withdraw show cause notices and orders passed by Appellate authority was maintained by Customs Appellate Tribunal---Validity---Provisions of Import Policy Order, 2013 allowed temporary import-cum-re-export of goods mentioned therein---Goods Declaration clearly showed that tugs were imported temporarily with intention to re-export them---Importer company had submitted Bank guarantee to satisfaction of customs authorities in such behalf, therefore, it was not an import simplicitor---TAX and duties applicable on permanent import of goods could not be imposed on temporary-cum-re-export of goods---If customs authorities disputed exemption of duties upon tugs in question imported by company, remedy provided by Notification SRO No.678(I)/2004 dated 07-08-2004 was to be adopted but instead, show-cause notice were issued which was violation of Notification SRO No.678(I)/2004 dated 07-08-2004---Importer company intended to import tugs temporarily, therefore, Federal Board of Revenue permitted them to do so---Once competent authority had allowed respondents to import tugs temporarily with an undertaking to re-export them, then there was no occasion for customs authorities to issue show-cause notices---High Court declined to interfere in the matter as authorities had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional defect in concurrent findings of law and fact of two forums below---Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2019 PCrLJ 1033 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : AMEER MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 365-A & 34---Kidnapping for ransom, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for kidnapping the brother of complainant for ransom---Record showed that alleged abductee had stated in his statement that in the afternoon of 30.6.2015 he left his station in a TAX i; after going a little ahead, the driver and rest of the three passengers armed with pistols and Kalashnikov suddenly got over him and blind folded him on board the TAX i and chained him into a room of a house, where another person was brought and chained with him---Accused had demanded ransom of Rs. 30,00,000/- for his release and subsequently, he was released on 10.7.015 in lieu of payment of Rs. 13,00,000/- paid by his father as a ransom money---Prosecution had failed to produce the father of abductee to corroborate his statement---Statement of abductee without supporting evidence would be excluded from consideration, in circumstances---Accused after 13th day of his arrest, was put to a test of identification parade in presence of Judicial Magistrate---Accused was identified by abductee, but without any reference to the role allegedly played by him during the occurrence, due to which the identification parade had lost its value---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted, in circumstances, by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.