Question of Law

One petition filed by Federation of Pakistan was beyond the scope of objection, therefore, presence of one or more petitions with objections on maintainability did not preclude Supreme Court from adjudicating upon common issue arising from judgments of same High Court

Objection was overruled.

One petition filed by Federation of Pakistan was beyond the scope of objection, therefore, presence of one or more petitions with objections on maintainability did not preclude Supreme Court from adjudicating upon common issue arising from judgments of same High Court

Objection was overruled.

When decision (more formally, the ratio decidendi) turns solely on a pure question of law and all the more so when that question is exclusively a matter of statutory interpretation, it is not enough for review petitioner to contend that the interpretation is incorrect

To allow such a ground to be taken would be, in effect, to allow review petitioner to reargue the case

Ground for review would have to be that the decision was per incuriam; it was difficult to conceive of any other reviewable ground being available.

Once limitation expires, a right accrues in favour of other side by operation of law and such right cannot lightly be taken away

Question of law, even if not taken or raised by opposite party, can be considered by the Courts even at appellate and revisional stage

Both the Courts evaluated evidence in true perspective and had reached to a just conclusion

High Court declined to disturb concurrent findings on facts as the same did not suffer from any misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were aggrieved of provision of S. 14(2)(b) and (c) of Family Courts Act, 1964 curtailing right of appeal for maintenance fixed for a meager amount of Rs.5000/- in aggregate

Full Bench of High Court was constituted primarily to consider following two questions: first whether a decree for maintenance granted for an amount less than Rs.5000/- per month to each of the plaintiffs is appealable under S. 14(2)(c) of Family Courts Act, 1964 by judgment debtor if aggregate amount of decree is more than Rs.5000/- per month?; and second whether Clauses (b) and (c) of Subsection (2) of S. 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 are not ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 after insertion of Art. 10A in the Constitution?

Plea raised by petitioners was that right of one appeal must be provided

Validity

Right to fair trial and due process is guaranteed under Art. 10A of the Constitution, for determination of civil rights and obligations of a person

There is nothing in the language of Art. 10A of the Constitution that guarantees at least one right of appeal against all such determinations

Curtailment of right of appeal under S. 14(2)(c) of Family Courts Act, 1964 is in very limited circumstances which does not unreasonably restrict access to justice when High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, keeps a check on whether judgment assailed in such proceedings is based on any patent violation of law, disregard of evidence available on file or in denial of fair procedure which ought to have been followed in facts and circumstances of the case

Provision of Art. 25(3) of the Constitution permits special provisions to be made for the benefit of women and children, and the right of appeal of a husband or father has been ousted under S. 14 (2)(c) of Family Courts Act, 1964 only in such limited cases where amount of maintenance was deemed by the Legislature to be meager

High Court directed Government of Punjab to operationalize Punjab Legal Aid Agency to ensure effective enforcement of rights of access to justice and fair trial as guaranteed under Arts. 9 & 10A of the Constitution to women and children, and to provide legal aid services to indigent persons in family matters

Questions of law were answered accordingly.

Legal effect of conclusion of fact is a question of law.

Pure question of law can be raised at any stage of proceedings.

There can be no estoppel against law.

Reference under S.133 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, lies before High Court on question of law only and the Court is obliged to answer the same in accordance with a rule of law

Question of law means a question as to what law is on a particular point, which provision of law is applicable to a particular factual situation and what true rule of law is on a certain matter

High Court, in reference jurisdiction, cannot either strike down a provision of law or declare it ultra vires of the Constitution

Any person desirous of a declaration of the kind can very well approach High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction

While exercising reference jurisdiction, High Court confines itself to questions framed / proposed and gives opinion in perspective of facts as found by Tribunal

Constitutionality of a particular provision is not at all required to be entered upon in such matters.

Under S. 676(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985 (Canada), the State could only appeal an acquittal on a question of law alone

Appealable error must be traced to a question of law, rather than a question about how to weigh evidence and assess whether it met the standard of proof

State could not appeal merely because an acquittal was unreasonable

Errors of law arose, for example, where the legal effect of findings of fact or of undisputed facts raised a question of law and where there was an assessment of the evidence based on a wrong legal principle

When interpreting a trial judge's reasons, appellate courts should not parse the reasons of the trial judge in a line by line search for errors

Instead, the reasons were to be read as a whole, in the context of the evidence, the issues and the arguments at trial, together with an appreciation of the purposes or functions for which they were delivered

Appellate courts must attempt to understand the reasoning of the trial judge

However, even if the trial judge articulated the right test, appellate courts may find an error of law if the judge's reasoning and application demonstrated a failure to properly apprehend the law.

Where question of law raised in a reference under S.133 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 had already been settled by High Court in another case, and ratio decidendi of said case was squarely applicable on question of law proposed in a new reference, such reference could be disposed of in terms of the ratio decidendi of the already settled case.

Question of law that was framed in reference did not raise any substantive question of law arising out of order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as in advisory jurisdiction, court could only answer questions of law

High Court framed questions of law arising out of tax reference yet primary and foremost question to be determined was interpretation of S.17(1)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which related to interest earned by Bank on government securities whether on accrual basis or on receipt basis

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and maintained the same

Reference was dismissed in circumstance.

Question of limitation if not taken or raised by the party, could be considered by the court even at appellate and revisional stage.

Pure question of law means a question which does not require any investigation into facts but which could not have been met by a plea of fact if raised at proper stage

Ordinarily, it will be a good argument as against a plea being plea of law that it could have been met by an allegation of fact

Proposition is not open to contest that pure questions of law can be raised at any stage

Court itself is to apply law whatever law is applicable on admitted or proved facts

Law has to be given effect to whether or not it has been relied upon by a party

If a mandatory condition for exercise of jurisdiction by a court is not fulfilled then entire proceedings which follow become illegal and suffer from want of jurisdiction.

No bar exists to raise legal questions at any stage of the proceedings and before any forum.

Department impugned order of Appellate Tribunal where interim relief was allowed to taxpayer and claimed that the same constituted a question of law for the purpose of adjudication under S.47 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Validity

Appellate Tribunal, in the present case, had not decided any legal issue which would invoke jurisdiction under S.47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

High Court converted present reference under S.47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 into a Constitutional petition and held that Appellate Tribunal could not grant an indefinite stay in a sales tax matter

High Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide the matter within 30 days

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Order by Appellate Tribunal remanding a matter by observing that certain facts had not been determined by the forum below, which order did not determine anything finally and conclusively, would not generally give rise to any question of law to be determined by the High Court under S.47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

Such a reference to High Court would be premature, misconceived and not maintainable.

Question as to whether the verification of an (election) petition or the affidavit in support of such petition was in accordance with the law or not, was a question which did not require recording of evidence for its determination, as the question of proper consideration of a document was a question of law and not of fact.

Question before the High Court was "whether Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that amendment of taxpayer's assessment was not justified in the circumstances of the case"

Held, wealth statement, Bank statements and other document were filed by taxpayer in his reply to the Department and entries referred to by Department were all duly explained, and therefore there was no occasion for amending assessment of taxpayer under S.122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and no question of law arose in the present case

High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under S.133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in circumstances.

Grounds raised as questions of law had been repeatedly urged before all other forums and were considered in all the orders

No question of law was made out, High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under S.133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Reference was decided against the taxpayer.

Question of law could be raised at any stage.

Question of law can be raised at any stage of proceedings.

Income Tax Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue whereby order passed by Collector Income Tax was maintained

Validity

Question which was neither raised, discussed, argued or decided by Appellate Tribunal, could not be termed as question of law arising from order of Appellate Tribunal, which required any opinion of High Court

One of the proposed questions did not arise from order passed by Appellate Tribunal whereas second question was otherwise not pressed by authorities

Question raised by authorities was not a substantial legal question and did not require any opinion of High Court under its reference jurisdiction in terms of S. 131(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Case involving a question of law can primarily be interpreted by superior courts.

Pure question of law can be raised at any stage of the appeal depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

A pure question of law can be raised at any stage of the appeal depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

A pure question of law can be raised at any stage of the appeal depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Assessing Officer in his order had thoroughly discussed issue of market sample and discount distributors, margin, low fill allowance

Claims of incentives, payment of wages of temporary workers paid through cash, salary, wages, selling and advertisement, dispensing units, purchase of deep freezer etc. etc. were indicators of the quality of accounts of assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concluded that there was a proper notice under S.62 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and that adds back had rightly been made

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was of the view that questions proposed by 'assessee were mostly not referable

Validity

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had confirmed treatment after due consideration of facts of the case

Acceptance of trading account of assessee did not create a good impression in favour of tax payer's and credibility of his accounts

As the findings of fact at the subordinate stage had not satisfactorily been controverted, there was no question of emergence of a question of law from the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Notice under S.62 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was issued and the same was particular in respect of additions

Some misapplication of mind while making adds back existed but the mistakes were a matter of rectification and did not give rise to a question of law

Questions proposed by assessee did not arise out of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal hence dismissed

Question referred by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was answered in affirmative

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Question of law could be raised at any stage.

Question of law on the basis of provision of law can be raised at any stage.

Such question can be raised at any stage of proceedings.

Question of law could be raised at any stage of proceedings.

Where any party challenges the conclusion drawn from a set of facts and circumstances, it is a question of law.

Forum/Tribunal seized with a proposition is free to form its independent opinion by exercising jurisdiction in a prescribed or settled manner

Non-exercise or mis-exercise of such jurisdiction is relatable to question of law

Where .a Tribunal declines to exercise jurisdiction on one or the other pretext, then basic question of law emerges for consideration, whether the decision under challenge is legally justified or not.

Forum/Tribunal seized with a proposition is free to form its independent opinion by exercising jurisdiction in a prescribed or settled manner

Non-exercise or mis-exercise of such jurisdiction is relatable to question of law

Where a Tribunal declines to exercise jurisdiction on one or the other pretext, then basic question of law emerges, for consideration whether the decision under challenge is legally justified or not.

Indian Income. Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 256 & 263.

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 32 & 256. The question whether bottles used in liquor business are "plant" for the purposes of depreciation allowance is a question of law.

Objection of assessee with regard to appeal filed by Authority against the decision of Tribunal was that appeal was not maintainable as question of law was involved therein

High Court repelled such objection and held that the question, whether sales tax could be demanded on goods supplied after 30-6-1996, was a pure question of law.

Tribunal was of the view that Department had made credit in the cases of recipients to the amounts actually withheld in their cases, and if assessee, was still of the view that parts of amount required to be withheld had already been received by Department after framing of assessments in the cases of recipients, the assessee could make application for rectification giving the details of amount of tax deducted or received by Department from recipients

Validity

Assessee had made only partial deductions from amounts paid to various recipients

Tribunal had not found that all recipients having been assessed in their respective circles, the Revenue had not suffered any loss

Question framed, if at all to be termed a question of law, could arise only if there was a finding of fact by Tribunal that all moneys belonging to Department had been received arid provisions of S.52 of the Ordinance were not attracted in such case

Tribunal had rightly left such matter open to- be established by assessee before Assessing Officer through rectification application

Question framed did not raise a legal controversy to be resolved by High Court under S.136 of the Ordinance

Answer was declined by the High Court.

Amount deducted by the Highway Department out of total contract receipts on account of supply of material to its contractor could not be included in the gross receipts of the contractor/assessee for determining his total income chargeable to tax

Amount being price of supply made by the Department was an expense and could not form part of the gross receipts

Said amount having never reached the hands of the assessee, he had all the justifications to reduce his receipts by that sum.

For referring a question of law it is necessary that such question must arise out of order of Tribunal. [p. 502] A

Question arising out of an order of the Tribunal on the reference application made under S.136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1975 could not be entertained by the. High Court

Question of law which could possibly be a moot point before High Court must have arisen out of an order of the Tribunal recorded under S.135 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.

Misinterpretation or misconstruction of a document is a question of law.

Whether or not a party had taken a plea on a question of law, Court cannot abdicate its duty to apply correct law in a given situation.

Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court was a legal issue and the jurisdiction could not be conferred on a Court by not pressing the same

Issue of jurisdiction could be agitated at any stage and level of the proceedings.

Question of Law Qurestion of law does not require fresh investigation and can be raised at any stage specially when that hit the very root of the case.

Question of law, determination whereof was not dependent upon inquiry and investigation of facts could be allowed to be raised at any stage of the proceedings even if same had not been raised before lower forums: -[New plea].

Question, when can be said to arise.