FRIGZ FOODS SIALKOT CANTT vs COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PRA, LAHORE Ss — 2021 PTD 443 APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB

Case information

Citation: 2021 PTD 443 APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
Year: 2021
Reporter: PTD
Parties: FRIGZ FOODS SIALKOT CANTT vs COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PRA, LAHORE Ss
Provisions referred to: S. 5; S. 36; S. 3; Punjab Revenue Authority Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

FRIGZ FOODS SIALKOT CANTT VS COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PRA, LAHORE Ss.3, 5 & 36---Punjab Revenue Authority, powers and functions of---Validation---Scope---Show-cause notice issued to the appellant alleged that it being franchisee had deposited certain amounts in the Bank account of the franchiser on account of royalty and advertisement, etc---Additional Commissioner, on failure of appellant to file any reply, passed the assessment order---Appeal filed against said order was dismissed---Contention of appellant was that vide judgment of High Court reported as "The Institute of Architects, Pakistan v. Province of Punjab and others [2016 PTD 1103] all the actions taken and notices issued by the Chairperson of Punjab Revenue Authority, acting as Authority were declared illegal and without lawful authority, therefore, the show-cause notice issued to the appellant was also unlawful and without lawful authority---Validity---Contention of appellant was a misconceived notion of law because after passing of said judgment on 25-01-2016, Legislature had inserted section 36 in the Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012 on 05-02-2016; on the same date sub-clause (4) of S.5 of Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012, was also inserted and thereafter, on 05-09-2016 sub-clause (c) of S.36 of Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012, was also inserted---Cumulative effect of the said provisions was that the Authority stood established under S.3 of Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012, with effect from 01-07-2012 and that all actions taken by the Chairperson on behalf of the Authority were deemed to be the actions validly taken by the Authority---Objection/contention of the appellant, being not well-founded, was turned down.

Other judgments reported in 2021 PTD

2021 PTD 892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORECHENAB FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss. 2(a), 4 & Preamble---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.2(8)---Sales Tax Ac…
2021 PTD 892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORECHENAB FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Delegated/subordinate legislation---'Notifications' as a form of delegated legislat…
2021 PTD 892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORECHENAB FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN art. 199 & Pt. II, Chapt. 1---Fiscal notification---Constitutional jurisdiction of…
2021 PTD 892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORECHENAB FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN art. 199 & Pt. II, Chap. 1---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope-…
2021 PTD 892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORECHENAB FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Delegated/subordinate legislation, vires of---Strong presumption of constitutionali…
2021 PTD 871 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREPUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES, RAWALPINDI VS DEPUTY COLLECTOR ADJUDICATION S.24-a---Reasons to be stated for decision---Scope---Order passed by ju…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English