Four reportable judgments in the 16–20 July 2026 upload window — one from the Federal Constitutional Court, two from the Supreme Court and one from the Sindh High Court (the Lahore and Islamabad High Courts returned no new entries).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• Province of Sindh v. Zulfiqar Khushk — the creation and reorganisation of cadres within the civil service is an executive prerogative, so the Sindh Provincial Management Service Rules 2018 (amalgamating the PSS and Ex-PCS cadres into a unified service) are constitutionally valid; the Article 25 guarantee of equality strikes only at hostile discrimination and not at reasonable classification, and once the executive acts within its statutory authority judicial review must yield to institutional restraint — subject to the settled bar on absorbing non-cadre or non-civil-servant appointees into competitively recruited posts. Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; the Sindh High Court judgment set aside.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Saudi Pak Industrial & Agricultural Investment Company — section 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 is the primary and specific charging provision for all dividends, taxable at 10% as a separate block under the presumptive regime; section 39 (income from other sources) is merely residual and cannot be invoked to defeat a specific charge, and section 8 is a machinery provision that cannot dilute a substantive charging section, so the department could not tax corporate dividends at the normal 35% rate. Petitions dismissed and leave refused.
• Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Bawany Sugar Mills — section 8(1)(h) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 is an absolute bar on input-tax adjustment for goods used in immovable property (cement, steel, fittings), section 73’s banking-channel requirement is a rigid, non-negotiable condition precedent irrespective of commercial genuineness, and there is no estoppel against a statute, so a concession by counsel cannot bind the court on a question of law. Appeal allowed; the High Court and Tribunal orders set aside and the disallowance of input tax restored.

Sindh High Court

• Bank Islami Pakistan v. Hascol Petroleum — a judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires an admission that is clear, unambiguous, categorical and unqualified, so provisional, unreconciled and revisable figures in a proposed Scheme of Arrangement — expressly protected by a “no-admission” clause and to be read as part of a single integrated document — do not qualify; corporate restructuring under the Companies Act 2017 and recovery under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 operate in distinct statutory spheres. Admission application dismissed; the banking suit to proceed in accordance with law.