2002 PLP 678 (CLC)
SHAFI ULLAH — Appellant Versus TOUSIF AHMAD QURESHI, DEPUTY COLLECTOR and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 678 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAFI ULLAH — Appellant Versus TOUSIF AHMAD QURESHI, DEPUTY COLLECTOR and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 678 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 678 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 678 (CLC) (SHAFI ULLAH — Appellant Versus TOUSIF AHMAD QURESHI, DEPUTY COLLECTOR and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Muhammad Virk and Jhawar Hussain Naqvi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 194 & 196
Dismissal of appeal by Appellate Tribunal was barred by time by 318 days
Contention of the petitioner was that Tribunal had not considered the prayer for condonation of delay in its correct perspective, and that he being a Pushto-speaking could not communicate with public in general or know that he was being defrauded by his counsel
Every subject as against revenue was at a disadvantageous position once a demand had been created against him-- Prayer for condonation of delay by a subject in revenue matter, must be considered objectively, as the subject would never gain anything by. delaying an appeal or application
High Court partly accepted appeal and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the prayer of appellant for condonation of delay.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Muhammad Virk and Jhawar Hussain Naqvi for Respondents. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on account of its being barred, by time by 318 days.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the revenue.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Tribunal did not consider the prayer for condonation in its correct perspective. Also submits that the petitioner was defrauded by a member of the bar and being Pashto-speaking he was not able to communicate with public in general or to know that he was being defrauded by his counsel.
4. Having heard the parties we are of the view that in revenue matters the prayer for condonation of delay by a subject must be considered (objectively. For, a subject will never gain anything by delaying an appeal or application. Secondly, in such course no valuable right can be said to have arisen to the revenue. Every subject, as against revenue is at a disadvantageous position once a decree has been created against him.
5. Therefore, we will partly allow this appeal and direct the learned Tribunal to reconsider the prayer of the appellant for condonation of delay.
6. Appeal partly accepted. S.A.K./S-325/L Appeal partly accepted.