Citation Name: 2021 YLR 110 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)/COLL

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

Citation Name: 2021 YLR 110 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)/COLLECTOR VS MEHRULLAH KHAN Ss. 18 & 23---Reference to court---Enhancement of compensation---Market value---Determination of---Procedure---Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount of acquired land from Rs. 100/- per sq. feet to Rs. 300/- per sq. feet along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges---Validity---Acquired land was situated near the road which was not only important for commercial purpose but for residential as well---Land Acquisition Collector had based his award on the average price for a period of one year---Criteria of one year average could not be made basis for assessment of compensation amount of acquired land---Land had been acquired in the interest of general public and compensation should be fixed in the light of criteria of a willing vendor and that of a needy vendee---Compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in its award was not according to legal and equitable criteria---Compensation amount of Rs. 300/- per sq. feet demanded by the landowner was proper, in circumstances---Land Acquisition Collector had not considered the record properly produced by the landowner---Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below were in accordance with law and in consonance with evidence available on record---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 90 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case RAKHSHANDA JAMAL VS SHAHID-UL-HASSAN art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Pendency of criminal proceedings---Scope---Petitioner sought a direction to the police to trace out her minor daughters abducted by respondent---Petitioner had got lodged an FIR against the respondent for wrongfully confining and abducting her daughters---Petitioner had obtained khula from the respondent, therefore, personal grudge and dislike was visible---Petitioner had invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court despite the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the respondent---Petitioner could not invoke the constitutional jurisdiction on the same matter simultaneously---Constitutional petition was dismissed. Citation Name: 2025 PTD 1833 BALOCHISTAN-SALES-TAX-ON-SERVICES-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL, QUETTABookmark this Case CASING CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER BALOCHISTAN REVENUE AUTHORITY Ss. 2(115), 2(139), 25 & 27---Company having its registered head office in a province other than Balochistan---Registration with Balochistan Revenue Authority, requirement of---Scope---"Place of Business in Balochistan"---Scope---"Resident"---Scope---Company (appellant) engaged in business of manufacturing / processing of meat was compulsorily registered as a withholding agent by Balochistan Revenue Authority (BRA) on the basis that it was carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of Balochistan---Argument of the appellant was that it had its head office at Karachi and no services were availed in Balochistan---Whether the appellant was legally required to get registered with the BRA as service recipient/ withholding agent or not?---Held, that argument of the appellant was not convincing as, admittedly, the appellant had business premises at Hub, Balochistan where meat was processed---If no other services were availed, then at least bringing raw meat into factory and the transportation of processed meat outside the factory involved services---On the basis of said admitted facts and definitions of "Place of Business in Balochistan" and "Resident" provided under Ss. 2(115) & 2(139) of Balochistan Sales Tax on Services Act, 2015 ('the Act, 2015'), it was held that the appellant was required to get registered with the BRA as under both definitions, when read together, a company was resident of Balochistan if it had place of business in Balochistan through which it carries on an economic activity---A company being resident of Balochistan was required under S. 25 of the Act, 2015 to get registered with BRA failing which the BRA may proceed to compulsorily register it under S. 27 of the Act, 2015---Considering the admitted facts and the provisions of the Act, 2015, the appellant was required to get registered with the BRA---Since the appellant had failed to get voluntarily registered under S. 25 of the Act, 2015, the appellant was rightly registered compulsorily under S. 27 of the Act, 2015---No infirmity was found in the impugned orders regarding compulsory registration of appellant with the BRA---Appeal, filed by appellant-company was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2021 YLR 110 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)/COLLECTOR vs MEHRULLAH KHAN Ss — 5

Case information

Judgment text as reported