A working note on the Lahore High Court’s Division Bench judgment in Nishat Hotel and Properties Ltd. v. Province of Punjab (17 June 2026), which dismissed some 230 intra-court appeals and upheld the retrospective validating amendments to the Punjab Revenue Authority Act 2012 — insulating the Authority’s sales-tax recoveries from challenge on the ground of the earlier establishment and constitution defect. The full note is attached as a PDF; the essentials are below.

Background

In Institute of Architects, Pakistan v. Province of Punjab (PLD 2016 Lahore 321), a Single Judge held that the Punjab Revenue Authority had neither been validly established under section 3(1) of the PRA Act 2012 nor lawfully constituted, and struck down its actions, appointments and rules; that decision attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The Province then enacted validating amendments in 2016 — including section 36(c), which deemed the Authority established from 1 July 2012, and an amended definition of “member” validating the ex-officio members. A Single Judge upheld those amendments in PLD 2019 Lahore 729 (while striking down section 5(4) as susceptible to misuse), and the private assessees brought these 230 intra-court appeals.

What the Court held

• Legislative competence. The power to enact validating legislation is ancillary and incidental to the plenary power to legislate on a subject; as sales tax on services lies within the provincial domain, the Provincial Legislature was competent to validate — provided it first removed the defect on which the earlier judgment rested, and did not merely declare an invalid act to be valid.
• The defects were cured. Section 36(c) deemed the Authority established from 1 July 2012 (a retrospective legal fiction within the exclusive legislative domain, dispensing with a separate section 3(1) notification), and the amended section 2(j) retrospectively validated the ex-officio members, so that from 15 June 2015 the Authority stood duly constituted with a Chairperson and four members. Mustafa Impex (“Government” means the Cabinet) could not be applied retrospectively to invalidate the 2015 appointments.
• Counterfactual and the de facto doctrine. Had the amendments been in force and the Authority duly constituted, the outcome in Institute of Architects would not necessarily have been the same, since section 8 of the PRA Act and the de facto doctrine — which protects acts of officers holding office under colour of authority — would have been available.
• Articles 4 and 18. The amendments do not, as such, validate the impugned appointments; through a non obstante clause they validate the acts of the Chairperson and the taxes levied and recovered, which are in any event protected by the de facto doctrine. So long as the Legislature has competence and removes the basis of the earlier decision, it may validate past acts and recoveries.
• Section 5(4). The unappealed striking down of section 5(4) is immaterial: it was a transitional provision that became otiose once the Authority was constituted on 15 June 2015, and its invalidation does not impair the remaining validating provisions.
• No vested right from a defect. No concluded contracts or accrued rights of the Al-Samrez / Molasses Trading type are involved; no person can claim a vested right arising out of a defect in a statute, and retroactive curative legislation for taxing statutes is well recognised.

Finding no illegality in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed all 230 intra-court appeals as meritless; the Punjab Revenue Authority’s validating amendments and the recoveries made thereunder stand upheld.