Not every tax reference ends in dismissal or a final answer — some end in a reset button. In the Commissioner's reference against S. Kishwar Abbas Zaidi (310 of 2022), the Sindh High Court (Justice Agha Faisal, author; Justice Shah Nawaz Memon) disposed of the matter on exactly the same terms as the identical matter ITRA 296 of 2024, decided on 11.11.2025.
The impugned order was set aside and the case remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law — preferably within three months. And the court added a shield that matters enormously to the taxpayer: no coercive action is to be taken against the respondent in the interim.
The legal logic is worth understanding. Where the adjudication record has gaps — facts that are no longer amenable to adjudication in the High Court's reference jurisdiction — the defect cannot be cured by the High Court deciding the facts itself. The cure is remand: send it back to the proper forum for a proper hearing. And where identical matters have already been disposed of on identical terms, consistency demands the same treatment — here, by consent.
For taxpayers, two practical takeaways. First, if your case is going back for fresh adjudication, ask for the interim shield — this judgment shows courts will restrain coercive recovery while the remand is pending. Second, identical treatment of identical matters is itself an argument: if a companion case got a remand with protection, so should yours. Remand wapas bhejta hai, magar khaali haath nahi — the taxpayer goes back down with a court-ordered umbrella.