2002 PLP 2966 (PTD)
FATIMA SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SALES TAX, LAHORE and 4 others
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2966 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | FATIMA SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SALES TAX, LAHORE and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2966 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 2966 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Naseem Sikandar and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 2966 (PTD) (FATIMA SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SALES TAX, LAHORE and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 46 & 47
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Appeal pending before Appellate Tribunal
Tribunal on appellant's application for announcement of order observed that appeal having already been heard, judgment would be announced in due course
Appellant sought a direction against Tribunal for early disposal of its appeal- --Validity-- Present appeal was not maintainable as no order passed by Tribunal had come in the field out of which a question of law to be considered by High Court could be said to have arisen
Alternate plea for direction to Tribunal to consider appellant's application for interim relief till announcement of judgment could not be granted in appeal under S.47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990
Appellants for that matter would have to approach High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction- --High Court rejected appeal in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.
In this further appeal under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 the appellant seeks a direction against the Appellate Tribunal to announce the judgment in the appeal pending before them.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at pre admission stage we are of the view that this appeal is not maintainable. It appears that on his application for announcement of order a Division Bench of the Tribunal on 13-8-2002 observed that the appeal having already been heard the judgment will be announced in due course.
3. Therefore, in the given situation no order passed by the Tribunal has come in the field out of which a question of law to be considered by this Court under the aforesaid provisions of the Act can be said to have arisen. The alternate plea of the learned counsel for a direction to the Tribunal to consider their application for interim relief till the announcement of the judgment also cannot be granted in an appeal under the said provisions of the Act. For that purpose the petitioner will have to approach this Court in Constitutional Jurisdiction.