Pending proceedings

2024 PLD 60 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 264RepealPending proceedingsEffect

When a statute is repealed, everything stands obliterated except pending proceedings.

2024 PLD 60 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 6Criminal trialRepeal of lawPending proceedingsEffect

All investigations or proceedings which are contemplated are to continue as if the Repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed

Trial of criminal case has to be in accordance with rules of procedure in force at the commencement of the trial and the same procedure has to be followed.

2022 CLC 237 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Retrospective effectPending proceedings

Notification which purports to impair an existing or vested right or imposes a new liability or obligation cannot operate retrospectively in absence of legal sanction but the converse i.e. a notification which confers benefit can operate retrospectively.

2015 PTD 1799 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.33Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionRefund of claimPending proceedings

Grievance of petitioner was that despite decision of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in its favour, authorities had not paid its refund claims

Validity

Appellate proceedings, in fact, were continuity of original proceedings and unless matter was fully decided by the highest forum provided under the statute, implementation of order, which had been assailed before higher forum in accordance with law, could not be sought by filing a Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution, as the same could render remedy of appeal / revision before higher forum as illusionary and would amount to frustrate such proceedings

Relief sought by petitioner seeking implementation / execution of order of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which otherwise had merged into the order passed by High Court, was still pending for final adjudication before Supreme Court

Grievance of petitioner was misconceived and was also premature and could not be granted by High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, at such stage

Claim of refund had not been finally determined by authorities in accordingly with law

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 PTD 22 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.196Valuation RulingPending proceedingsAmendment during proceedingsRetrospective effect, question of

During pendency of proceedings initiated by importer, new Valuation Ruling was issued by authorities and importer was given benefit of new Valuation Ruling

Plea raised by customs authorities was that such benefit had given retrospective effect to Valuation Ruling

Validity

Valuation Ruling in question was issued during pendency of case of importer, which was still pending and yet to be finalized and was in continuation of earlier Valuation Ruling and proceedings

Importer could not be deprived of benefit of the same, as it would amount to gross injustice to importer and defeat principles of natural justice

Importer, from day one was contesting the matter and once matter had been finally decided in favour of importer by issuance of Valuation Ruling in question, importer could not be denied benefit of the same

Such was not a question of giving any retrospective effect to Valuation Ruling, rather was a case of application of Valuating Ruling to pending proceedings

As to whether any retrospective effect was to be given to subsequent Ruling or not was immaterial

Order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal did not suffer from any illegality nor any negligence was committed by the Tribunal in passing order in question

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 CLC 927 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

S. 2(2)Pending proceedingsJudgment passed by Civil JudgePetitioner sought allotment of land to him on the basis of judgment dated 30-9-2013, passed by Civil JudgeValidity

Case of petitioner did not fall within the purview of "pending proceedings" nor it was remanded by High Court or Supreme Court

Notified officer, under S.2(2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, could take cognizance of a matter, which was either pending before him or was remanded to him by High Court or Supreme Court

Application was dismissed in circumstances.