1985 PLP (C (PLC)
Ch. MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT QF PUNJAB, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERS
| Citation | 1985 PLP (C (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT QF PUNJAB, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP (C (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP (C (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP (C (PLC) (Ch. MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT QF PUNJAB, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Sheikh for Appellant.
- A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 4 ‑ Appeal against adverse remarks‑Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer for about 6 months' tenure reported "No big seizure/detection during the period. The overall conduct remained just of approvable type only"‑Facts and figures relating to seizure and recoveries indicating that performance of appellant was much better as compared to predecessor‑Impugned remarks, in circum. stances, held, vague and contradictory hence expunged by Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
District Mianwali Description Annual Target Recovery upto 2nd Six Recovery to Tax 31‑12‑1982 Months upto from 30‑6‑1983 1‑1‑1983 to 30‑6‑1983 Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Excise. 10,000 3,804 6,398 10,202 Motor Tax. 44,00,000 21,46,423 15,67,707 37,14,130 Motor Tax (A) 89,358 38,203 40,599 78,802 Property Tax, 4,81,876 2,44,710 1,14,667 3,59,377 Exemption 93,412 29,087 1,22,400 3,38,122 1,43,754 4,81,876 Entertainment Duty. 5,00,000 2,54,077 2,67,084 5,21,161 Cinema Tax. 10,000 10,200 ‑‑ 10 200 Tobacco Vend Fee. 10,000 3,600 6,400 10,000 Education Cess, 7,00,000 1,10,550 2,74,250 7.84,800 Capital Gains Tax. 1,40,000 62,891 87,555 1,50,446 Professional Tax. 3,00,000 1,96,200 1,16,100 3,12,300 Real Estate, 2,000 600 ‑‑ 600 Agents. Cotton fee 16,127
16,127 16,127 Arrear. Total 83,03,361 31,64,670 45,69,974 77,34,644" (Predecessor's Appellant's period). period). I consider that the good work done by the appellant should have been appreciated by his superiors. I also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that keeping in view the facts and figures as analysed in this Judgment, the adverse remarks given to the appellant are vague and contradictory.
7. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the respondents have not been able to justify the adverse remarks so recorded in the A.C.R. of the appellant for the period from 9th January, 1983 to 30th June, 1983 and are thus expunged. There will be no order as to costs. A.E.