Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2015 PTD 63
Court / Jurisdiction: INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN
Parties: FAUJI KABIRWALA POWER COMPANY LTD. vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, LTU, ISLAMABADHonorable Justice Ch. Anwaar Ul HaqAsim Zulfiqar Ali,Sikandar Naeem Qazi
This judicial decision was delivered by the INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN. The matter involves proceedings between FAUJI KABIRWALA POWER COMPANY LTD. and COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, LTU, ISLAMABADHonorable Justice Ch. Anwaar Ul HaqAsim Zulfiqar Ali,Sikandar Naeem Qazi, officially reported as 2015 PTD 63. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
2015 P T D (Trib.) 63
[Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal]
Before Ch. Anwaar ul Haq, Javed Iqbal, Ch. Shahid Iqbal Dhillon, Muhammad Waseem Ch., Judicial Members, Sohail Afzal, Muhammad Akram Tahir and Fiza Muzaffar, Accountant Members
FAUJI KABIRWALA POWER COMPANY LTD. and 8 others
Versus
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, LTU, ISLAMABAD
S.T.As. Nos. 605/LB, to 608/LB and 979/LB to 982/LB of 2013, decided on 13th December, 2013.
Per Ch. Anwaar-ul-Haq Judicial Member; Sohail Afzal, Accountant Member, Muhammad Akram Tahir, Accountant Member, Fiza Muzaffar, Accountant Member, Ch. Shahid Iqbal Dhillon, Judicial Member, agreeing; Javed Iqbal, Judicial Member contra
(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----Ss.8(2), 7, 2(46), 11(2), 33, 34 & 71---Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007, Chap: III, Rr.13(3) & 15(1)---Sales Tax Rules, 2006, Chap: IV, R.25---S.R.O. 922(I)/99 dated 16-8-1999---Tax credit not allowed---Power project---Energy purchase price---Capacity purchase price---Taxable supplies---Non-taxable supplies---Exempt supplies---Apportionment of input tax---Disallowance part of input tax---Revenue confronted that Independent Power Producers failed to make apportionment of input tax in respect of amount received against Capacity Purchase Price from Water and Power Development Authority; and Capacity Purchase Price was exempted from levy of sales tax in terms of Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 subject to provisions of Ss.7, 8 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and all other relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, Rules and notifications; and if a registered person dealt in taxable supplies and non-taxable/exempt supplies, it could reclaim only such proportionate of input tax as was attributable to tax supplies in such manner as may be specified in terms of S.7 read with S.8 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and concluded that while Energy Purchase Price constituted consideration for 'taxable supply', the consideration for Capacity Purchase Price constituted 'non-taxable supply' which distinction permit it to restrict/disallow part of input tax; and mechanism for computation of 'value of supply' had an effect of splitting the supply/consideration into 'taxable and 'non-taxable' supplies which lawfully warranted apportionment of input tax under S.8(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Chapter IV of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006---Taxpayer contended that Capacity Purchase Price was excluded from value of supply under R.13(3) of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007; that as Capacity Purchase Price was not a part of value of supply; the Revenue could not make apportionment of input tax as Independent Power Producers were involved only and exclusively in one taxable activity i.e. production and sale of electricity; that consideration on account of Capacity Purchase Price was one of the segments of tariff/sale consideration of electricity; that Capacity Purchase Price was not a consideration for any identifiable supply rather the same was one of the components of consideration for taxable supply which was electricity; that provisions did not categorize the revenue representing Capacity Purchase Price as a consideration for 'non-taxable supply' rather these EXCLUDED the same from the amount chargeable to sales tax; that such exclusion had been wrongly and unlawfully equated by the Revenue with non-taxable/exempted supply; that where consideration in respect of one taxable supply was split into categories in a manner that part of the amount required to be subjected to sales tax and part to be excluded from charge of sales tax remain outside the purview of apportionment; that there was only one supply i.e. supply of electricity, the consideration for which was split in the Power Purchase Agreements under different heads ; that provisions of R.13(3) of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 had made exclusion while prescribing the charge of tax and restricted the same to the extent of Energy Purchase Price; that such could not be construed or equated with the situation conceived by the lawmaker to be the subject matter of S.8(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Chapter IV of Sales Tax Rules, 2006; that in terms of provisions contained in S.8(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 'apportionment' was required where a registered person dealt in 'taxable supplies' and 'non-taxable supplies', and such apportionment could only be carried out in 'such' manner as may be specified by the Federal Board of Revenue in the Rules; that Federal Board of Revenue had prescribed Chapter IV in Sales Tax Rules, 2006 in which 'apportionment' was specified between 'taxable supplies' and 'exempt supplies' exclusively; and that in said rules, the expression used was 'exempt supplies' and not 'non-taxable supplies', an expression used in primary legislation i.e. S.8(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Validity---Taxpayer dealt in taxable and non-taxable/exempt supplies and could reclaim only such proportion of input tax as was attributable to taxable supplies in such manner as may be specified by the Federal Board of Revenue---Having established that consideration paid by Water and Power Development Authority to Independent Power Producers (tariff) was taxable and that one component of the said tariff i.e. Capacity Purchase Price was exempted, input tax claimed shall be apportioned according to the manner specified by the Federal Board of Revenue---Federal Board of Revenue in R.25 of Sales Tax Rules, 2006 had formulated the methodology for apportionment of input tax for Registered Person making taxable and exempt supplies simultaneously---In the present case there being only one supply i.e. Bulk Power and as a component of said bulk power i.e. Capacity Purchase Price was exempted under Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007; and only residual input tax credit on taxable supplies could be claimed by the taxpayer meaning thereby that the taxpayer could not claim input adjustment without fulfilling the criteria laid down in Ss. 7 & 8 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Revenue had rightly applied R. 25 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 for apportioned input tax claimed by the Independent Power Producers---Show-cause notice issued under S.11(2) along with default surcharge under S.34 and penalty under S.33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, order in original as well as impugned order-in-appeal was upheld and appeals of the taxpayer/registered persons were rejected by the Appellate Tribunal.
Messrs Fauji Kabirwala Power Company Limited's case 2011 PTD 1306; (2013) 107 Tax 318 (Trib.); PLD 1975 Lah. 65; PLD 1980 Kar. 492; 2007 PTD 1902 = PLD 2007 SC 517; 2008 PTD 1693; 2002 PTD 2845; 2001 PTD 2982; 2002 PTD 976; 2001 PTD 2097 = 2001 SCMR 1376; Messrs Gujranwala Steel v. Chairman FBR and others 2009 PTD 431; Messrs Nishat Dairy (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue 2013 PTD 1883; Al-Karam CNG and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2011 PTD 1; Baba Farid Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others Writ Petition No.12851 of 2012 and The Collector of Sales Tax and others v. Superior Textile Mills Ltd. and others 2001 PTD 1486 ref.
(b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S.3(1)(a)---Scope of tax---Expression "In the course of"---Phrase "In furtherance of"---Meanings---"In the course of" means connected with, related to or having some nexus with the business/taxable activity and similarly "in furtherance of" was indicative of the fact that the taxable supply had been made for the enhancement/further development of the business/taxable activity.
2001 SCMR 1376; 2008 PTD 103; 2007 PTD 1902 = PLD 2007 SC 517; 2008 PTD 1693; 2002 PTD 2845; 2001 PTD 2982; 2002 PTD 976 and 2001 PTD 2097 = 2001 SCMR 1376 rel.
2007 PTD 1902 = PLD 2007 SC 517 ref.
(c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S.3(1)---Scope of tax---Independent Power Producers---Consideration paid by Water and Power Development Authority for purchase of power in accordance with Schedule 1 (Tariff, Indexation and Adjustment) of the Power Purchase Agreement to the Independent Power Producers while ensuring 18% profitability also furthered the business of the Independent Power Producers and shall be taxable in terms of S.3(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.
2001 SCMR 1376; 2008 PTD 103; 2007 PTD 1902 = PLD 2007 SC 517; 2008 PTD 1693; 2002 PTD 2845; 2001 PTD 2982; 2002 PTD 976 and 2001 PTD 2097 = 2001 SCMR 1376 rel.
(d) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S.2(46)---Expression "Value of supply"---Meaning---Interpretation of word "means"---Term 'means' restricts the scope of the term value of supply and no other meaning could be given to value of supply in contravention of S.2(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.
Messrs Fauji Kabirwala Power Company Ltd.'s case 2011 PTD 1306; Haji Sultan Ahmed v. CBR and 5 others 2008 PTD 103 and Messrs Gujranwala Steel v. Chairman FBR and others 2009 PTD 431 rel.
(e) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S.2(46)(g), proviso---Independent Power Procedures---"Value of supply"---Retail price---Meanings---Proviso to Cl. (g) of Cl.(46) of S.2 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was only to the extent of retail tax---Taxpayers/Independent Power Producers were not retailers and no other meaning other than what had been laid down in Cl. (46) of S.2 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 could be given to "value of supply".
(f) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----Ss.3 & 13(2)---Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007, R.13(2b) & (3)---Scope of tax---Exemption---Independent Power Producers---"Capacity Purchase Price"---If S.13(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was read with R.13(2b) & (3) of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007, the only interpretation that follows was that Capacity Purchase Price was exempted from levy of Sales Tax, otherwise, being taxable in terms of S.3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Power of levy of charge as contained in S.3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 could not be restricted by the Rules of Procedure; however, levy of charge under S.3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 could be exempted by the competent authorities.
Messrs Fauji Kabirwala Power Company Ltd.'s case 2011 PTD 1306; PLD 1980 (Kar.) 492; Haji Sultan Ahmed v. CBR and 5 others 2008 PTD 103; 2001 PTD 2982 and Messrs Gujranwala Steel v. Chairman FBR and others 2009 PTD 431 rel.
(g) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S.13---Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007, R.13(3)---"Exemption"---"Exclusion"---Destination---Primary difference between "exclusion" and "exemption" was that exclusion reduces the value of taxable supply, while exemption reduces the amount of tax---Exclusion reduces the value of supply, exemption first reduces the quantum of tax and as a consequence reduces the payability of tax due, both leading to the same result of reducing the tax liability/payability of the Registered Person---Mathematically speaking exclusion of certain items from the value of supply and exemption work on opposite sides of the one and the same equation---At the end of day, both the incentives/ methodologies "reduce" and "exempt" the tax liability of the Registered Person which may be in varying degree, under the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990.
(h) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S.13(2)(a)---Independent Power Procedures---Exemption---Power of Federal Government---Section 13(2)(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 empowered the Federal Government, through notification in the official gazette, to extend exemption to any taxable supplies from 'whole' or any 'part' of the tax chargeable under the Sales Tax Act, 1990---While framing Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007, the Federal Government while exercising said powers as provided under S.13(2)(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 excluded the value of Capacity Purchase Price, Energy Purchase Price, Excess Bonus, Supplemental Charges, etc., from the value of electricity supply and restricted the same to the extent the value of Energy Purchase Price only, as provided in R.13(3) of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007---Such exclusion constitutes "exemption" from the "value" of gross price of electricity.
Messrs Nishat Dairy (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue 2013 PTD 1883 and Al-Karam CNG and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2011 PTD 1 rel.
Baba Farid Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others Writ Petition No.12851 of 2012 distinguished.
(i) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----Ss.71(1), 13(2)(a) & 2(46)---Special procedure---While framing subordinate legislation i.e. Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007, Federal Government could not curtail the scope of definition of the "value of supply" as provided in S.2(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Federal Government was fully empowered under S.13(2)(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 to exempt "whole or any part of tax chargeable", which includes the "value of supply".
Per Javed Iqbal Judicial Member [Minority view] [pp. 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 105, 106] R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF
1993 PTD 69; 1996 SCMR 1470; 2008 PTD 103; 2013 PTD 1420; 2010 PTD 808; 2009 PTD 722; 2008 PTD 838; 2002 PTD 877; 2002 PTD 1573; 1992 SCMR 663; 1992 SCMR 2192; 1999 YLR 710; 2008 PTD 838; 2011 PTD 2042 = 2001 CLD 1300; 2003 PTD 1321; 2008 PTD 1346; 2006 PTD 1902; 2009 PTD 1661; 1989 CLC 1369; 2005 YLR 1293; 2003 PTD 1392; 1988 PTD 535; 2012 PTD (Trib.) 263; 2008 PTD 1993; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1643; 2003 PTD 1276; 2011 PTD 1306; (2013) 107 Tax 318 (Trib.); PLD 1975 Lah. 65 and PLD 1980 Kar. 492 ref.
Messrs Fauji Kabirwala Power Company Ltd.'s 2011 PTD 1306; PLD 1975 Lah. 65; PLD 1980 Kar. 492; 2001 PTD 2982; Messrs Gujranwala Steel v. Chairman FBR and others 2009 PTD 431; Messrs Nishat Dairy (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue 2013 PTD 1883; Al-Karam CNG and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2011 PTD 1 and The Collector of Sales Tax and others v. Superior Textile Mils Ltd. and others 2001 PTD 1486 distinguished.
Asim Zulfiqar Ali, FCA, Rashid Ibrahim, FCA, Hafiz Muhammad Idrees and Umar Arsha for Appellants.
Sikandar Naeem Qazi, LA, Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, LA and Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th December, 2013.
ORDER
CH.ANWAAR UL HAQ (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---Through this single order we intend to dispose off the titled eight appeals filed by the registered persons against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, (Appeals), Islamabad, as common issues is involved in these appeals.
2. The appellants, in these appeals, are Independent Power Producers [IPPs] and are engaged in the business of production and sale of electricity to WAPDA. In this respect, each of the appellants has entered into Power Purchase Agreement [PPA] with Government of Pakistan/WAPDA. The basic features of the PPA, in each case, are broadly the same. The tariff of electricity supplied by the appellants, under respective PPA, is approved by National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA). In terms of PPA, the consideration accruing to IPP in respect of sale of electricity is classifiable inter alia into following categories:--
Energy Purchase Price [EPP]: payable for each kWh of net electrical output or for each kW of Dependable Capacity and determined in terms of fuel component together with operational and maintenance expenditure;
Capacity Purchase Price [CPP]: payable for each kWh of dependable capacity and comprises of components in respect of fixed operations and maintenance cost, insurance, administration, return on equity, service charges including payments of principal, interest and other fees to lenders;
Energy Purchase Price Premium: payable based on the Net Electrical output delivered to WAPDA;
Supplementary Charges: payable on account of unit start-up costs and pass through items as agreed in PPA; and
Bonus: payable based on the Net Electrical Output if it is in excess of the Bonus Threshold.
3. The exemption of sales tax on electricity was withdrawn through S.R.O. 922(I)/99 dated August 16, 1999 prior to which date no sales tax was leviable on sale of electricity. In consequence to withdrawal of exemption of sales tax, as aforesaid, certain special provisions were initially prescribed for the levy and collection of sales tax with regard to IPPs which broadly have remained unchanged and, at present, are contained in Chapter-III of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 titled 'Special Procedure for Collection and Payment of sales tax on Electric Power'. These Rules have been framed by the Federal Government in terms of provisions contained in section 71 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (together with exercising of powers under other enabling provisions in the statute) which read as under:--
"71. Special Procedure.---(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, prescribe special procedure for scope and payment of tax, registration, book keeping and invoicing requirements and returns, etc, in respect of such supplies as may be specified therein ......"
4. The subject matter of the present appeals revolves around understanding, interpretation and application of provisions contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Chapter III of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 titled 'Special Procedure for Collection and Payment for Sales Tax on Electric Power', which provide as under:--
" ..
(3) In case of an I.P.P, HUBCO or KAPCO, the value of supply shall be the amount received by such IPP or, as the case may be, HUBCO or KAPCO, on account of Energy Purchase Price only and any amount in excess of Energy Purchase Price received on account of Capacity Purchase Price, Energy Purchase Price Premium, Excess Bonus, Supplemental Charges, etc., shall not be deemed as a component of the value of supply.
."
5. The core dispute between the IPPs and the Revenue is that whether the limit provided for in the aforesaid provisions vis- -vis the computation of 'value of supply' require apportionment of the input tax as specified in section 8(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Chapter IV of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006. In other words, the sole controversy is whether the mechanism / principle for computation of 'value of supply' in the aforesaid provisions of law that it shall only be to the extent of 'energy purchase price' ['EPP'] and shall not include the other receipts/components like 'capacity purchase price'[CPP'] etc. has an effect of bifurcating the 'supply' into 'taxable' and 'non-taxable' components for the purposes of valid and lawful application of section 8(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 under which there is a restriction that taxpayer could only claim / deduct input tax as is attributable to taxable supply. In the context of this and for the purposes of invocation of section 8(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the Revenue has treated the consideration on account of EPP as `taxable' supply and that on account of CPP etc. as 'non-taxable' supply.
6. It will be appropriate to first highlight the background of the controversy involved in the matter. The first case on the matter was made out against Messrs Fauji Kabirwala Power Company Limited (2011 PTD 1306), wherein this Tribunal upheld the orders of the authorities below with the following observations:--
"The foregoing discussion amply answers the question raised by us in the beginning of this para. The scope of the discussion is that FBR or any other executive agency is not an unelected wielder of legislative power. An agency exercising a delegated legislative power cannot change the purpose of a statute promulgated by the delegator, i.e. the legislature. In this case the effect of sections 2 (46), 7 and 8 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was neutralized in favour of IPPs through Sales Tax Rules, 2006 and STGO 3/2004. It is our considered opinion that F.B.R. could not lawfully defy a statutory provision. The exclusion of capacity purchase price from the purview of value of supply given in section 2(46) read with sections 7 and 8 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through the device of STGO 3/2004 and the Rule 13 of Sales Tax Rules, 2006, cannot survive the test of judicial scrutiny if challenged before superior Courts of Pakistan. We understand that we are not supposed to arrogate ourselves to the power of judicial review of rules framed by F.B.R., however, we are not expected to become party to something that is not lawful."
This judgment of the Tribunal is presently subject-matter in reference application before the Islamabad High Court, filed by the said company in terms of section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.
7. Subsequently, the said company Messrs Fauji Kabirwala Power Company Limited filed an application for rectification against the aforesaid findings, before this Tribunal and for dealing with a larger bench consisting of five members was constituted. The said larger bench accepted the rectification application, by majority [3:2] and modified the earlier decision and hold that no apportionment was legally warranted in the facts and circumstances applicable to IPPs. This decision of the larger bench is now reported as (2013) 107 Tax 318 (Trib.). Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here under:--
"It is an undisputed fact that the applicant is an independent Power Producer and is involved in only one activity and that is taxable activity of producing electricity. Capacity Purchase Price one of the segments of tariff of electricity agreed by the applicant with WAPDA the only buyer of its product, electricity however Capacity Purchase Price is not to be included in the value of electricity for the purposes of levy of sales tax. Rule 25 of Chapter-IV of Sales Tax Rules, 2006 is applicable where the taxpayers are involved in taxable and exempt activities. Section 13 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 provides that supply of such goods would be exempt from levy of sales tax as are specified in sixth schedule. Capacity Purchase Price neither is a separate goods not is include in Sixth schedule for being treated as exempt. Accordingly upholding treatment of Capacity Purchase Price in the impugned order and the proposed judgment as exempt supply an apportionment of input tax on that basis is a mistake apparent from record, for the reasons recorded in paragraphs above and required to be rectified in the impugned order. After rectification of impugned order S.T.A. No. 132/IB/2010, as held hereinabove, the apportionment of input tax to Capacity Purchase Price by the authorities below is held to be without any legal authority and hereby deleted and consequently the relief originally sought by the applicant is hereby allowed. The findings recorded in the impugned order to this effect are hereby rectified."
Against the aforesaid rectification order the department approached to the honourable Islamabad High Court through statutory reference application and constitutional petition. In both cases, their lordships were pleased to suspend the operation of the rectification order passed by this Tribunal and the said suspension orders still subsist.
8. Later on, in another appeal filed by Messrs Hub Power Company Limited, on the same issue, came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Tribunal, at Islamabad, this appeal was accepted holding that no apportionment of input tax is warranted under any circumstances. In this order dated February 26, 2013, passed in S.T.A. No. 35/IB/13, the Tribunal not only derived strength from the rectification order, referred supra, but also otherwise concluded against the apportionment of input tax. In the course of relying upon and deriving strength from the rectification order of the larger bench, the operations of which were admittedly suspended by the honourable Islamabad High Court, the Tribunal inter alia placed reliance on PLD 1975 (Lahore) 65 and PLD 1980 (Karachi) 492 the ratio whereof is that interim order, being not in the nature of deciding any question of law, is not binding in nature and operates inter se parties to the matter only. It was held in these decisions that even if a decision is suspended the ratio decidendi therein could still be followed unless the same is reversed or overruled by a higher authority. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here under:--
"We have heard the parties and let's first examine whether the Order of the Larger Bench in M.A. (R) S.T.A. No. 27/IB/2009 dated 3 September 2012 still holds the field or not. We have carefully gone through the judgments of Honourable High Court reported as PLD 1975 Lah. 65 and 2012 CLD 2029, both the decisions uphold in an unequivocal terms that suspensory order have the effect of inter-parties only and not as judgment in rem. Besides, the Writ Petition before the honourable Islamabad High Court only challenges Re-opening of appeal on application for rectification, whereas merits of the case are not the subject matter of the petition.
Further, the honourable High Court has…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.