Home Maxims & Terms Retrospective operation meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Retrospective operation

Retrospective operation legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2021 PTD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S.122SRO No.57(I)/2012, dated 24-01-2012Amendment of assessmentExemption notificationRetrospective operationScopeTaxpayer, being rice mill, had a special tax year starting from 1st of September till 31st of August

Minimum tax was being paid on normal rates till issuance of SRO No.57(I)/2012, dated: 24-01-2012 and on its issuance the tax for the year 2012 was paid at reduced rate

Department, disagreeing on payment at reduced rate retrospectively, proceeded under S.122(5A), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and raised a demand of less paid tax

Amended assessment order was successfully assailed before the first appellate authority

Department's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that remedial law could be given retrospective effect

Validity

Law existing in a particular tax year or tax period was applicable for the purpose of determining tax liability

No right to claim reduction in tax rate existed till closure of tax year 2012

Exemption notifications were always beneficial but were not curative or remedial generally

General rule was that a notification could not operate retrospectively

Exemption notification could not be applied retrospectively

Tax reference was decided in favour of the (applicant) department.

2013 CLD 1895 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Retrospective operationScope

Such operation cannot be given to an executive order for usurping contractual rights and obligation already accrued.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Retrospective operation", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124942529

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Retrospective operation"

PLD 1978
Regular Second Appeal No. 461 of 1975, decided on 26th. April 1978.

P L D 1978 Lahore 867

BARKAT ALI-Appellant Versus ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT, BHAKKAR — Respondent

Court: - S. 74-A as added by Thai Development (Punjab Amendment). Ordinance (XIX of 1975)-Interpretation of statutes Retrospectively---Statute not to be construed to have greater retrospective operation than its language renders necessary-Statute subsequent to a judgment vesting rights in a party-Can have no retrospective operation to divest vested rights unless such intention of Legislature clearly expressed-Retroactivity as provided by S. 74, held, does not apply to pending cases much less to decided matters.-Interpretation of . statutes.
PTD 2019
Writ Petition No. 249168 of 2018, decided on 24th June, 2019.

2019 P T D 1862

ABDUL SALAM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others

Court: Lahore High Court
PLD 1984
Civil Revision No. 171 of 1979, decided on 27th April, 1983.

P L D' 1984 Peshawar 117

Mst. FARIDA AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus REHMATULLAH AND ANOTHER‑‑Respondents

Court: Ss. 2 dt 6‑Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Application of Laws) Regulation (I of 1976)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 ‑Succession suit ‑‑ Rule of decision ‑ Tribal areas Muslim Personal Laws extended to tribal areas by Regulation No. I of 1976 with effect from 1:‑1‑1976‑Section 2 of Muslim Personal Laws Shariat Application Act, 1962 not retrospective in operation‑Death of owner taking place before enforcement of Act and succession in area governed by custom‑Question of application of Sbariat Act, in a suit brought in 1978, held, would not arise. ‑ Interpretation of statutes‑Custom. p. 119A
SCMR 1987
Civil Appeal No. 24‑K of 1986, decided on 2nd September,1986.

1987 S C M R 359

WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Appellant Versus IRTIQA RASOOL HASHMI and another‑‑Respondents

Court: ‑‑‑Ss. 17(1‑A), 18‑‑Service Rules‑‑Change with retrospective effect‑ Validity of‑‑Amendment in Rules by executive notification, cannot be given retrospective effect‑‑Respondent removed from service under section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act in 1977, was denied pensionary benefits in August, 1982 by an amendment in Rules made with retrospective effect by a notification issued under S.18 of Act (XXXI of 1958) in June, 1982‑‑Order set aside by Service Tribunal‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑Held: Executive orders cannot be given retrospective operation 'which powers can only be enjoyed by Legislature‑‑Rule‑making power which is by way of statutory grant, does not possess such quality unless conferred by statute, which is of rare occurrence‑‑Provisions of S.18 of WAPDA Act does not grant such authority to WAPDA to alter or change Service Rules touching terms and conditions of employees with retrospective operation so as to rob them of vested rights already accrued in their favour.‑‑Civil services‑‑Interpretation of statutes.
PTD 2021
N/A

2021 P T D 1

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Messrs THREE STAR RICE FACTORY

Court: Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench)
PLD 1966
Regular Second Appeal No. 131 of 1965/(BWP), decided on 12th April 1966.

P L D 1966 (W

NOOR MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN‑Respondent

Court:
PTD 2001
Civil ‑Appeal No. 4665 of 1996, decided on 20th July; 2000.

2001 P T D 2532

N.N. BHAGWATI Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX

Court: 247 I T R 206
SCMR 1996
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 146‑P of 1995, decided on 23rd July, 1995.

1996 SCMR 83

and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus M/s. RAIS KHAN LIMITED through Muhammad Hashim‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PTD 2006
I.T.A. No. 551/IB of 2005, decided on 15th December, 2005.

2006 P T D (Trib

N/A

Court: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
CLC 1980
Regular Second Appeal No. 461 of 1975/Civil Miscellaneous No. 4453/C of 1977, decided on 26th April, 1978.

1980CLC713

BARKAT ALI-Appellant , Versus ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT, BHAKKAIZ,

Court: Lahore