2026 PLP 201 (SCMR)
Messrs WAK LIMITED, MULTAN ROAD, LAHORE — Appellant Versus COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX LAHORE (NOW COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE LTU, LAHORE) and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2026 PLP 201 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Yahya Afridi, CJ, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs WAK LIMITED, MULTAN ROAD, LAHORE — Appellant Versus COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX LAHORE (NOW COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE LTU, LAHORE) and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 201 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 201 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Yahya Afridi, CJ, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 201 (SCMR) (Messrs WAK LIMITED, MULTAN ROAD, LAHORE — Appellant Versus COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX LAHORE (NOW COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE LTU, LAHORE) and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Sibtain Fazli, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hasham Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (through video-link from Lahore).
- Mrs. Kausar Parveen, Advocate Supreme Court, Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, Director-General (Law), FBR for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 36(1), 36(2) & 36(3) 'second proviso'
Central Excises Act (I of 1944), S.33(3)
Timeframe for passing order-in-original consequent to a show cause notice
Failure in adhering to such mandatory timeframe by the authorities
Effect
Order-in-original would be barred by time
Pivotal question requiring determination before the Supreme Court was "whether the timeframe provided for passing orders, post issuance of show cause notices was followed as required under the relevant statutes"?
Held: Despite two corrigendum issued, the events to invoke either Sections 36(1) and 36(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ('ST Act') were not disclosed
It was only in the second corrigendum that Section 36(1) of the Act with disclosing event required under the relevant law, was introduced for the first time
Nonetheless, the record reflected that under second proviso to Section 36(3) of the Act, the order under the relevant subsection was to be made within 120 days of the issuance of the show cause notice or within such extended period as the commissioner might, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, fixed, provided that such extended period in no case could exceed 60 days
The show cause notice was issued on 30.06.2000 and inconsideration thereof the order in original was passed on 02.02.2001, which was much beyond the timeframe required under the law
However, in appeal (Civil Appeal No. 636 of 2018) relating to sales tax there was no extension in timeframe within Section 36(3) of the Act; thus, the order in original should have been passed in 120 days
The orders in original were time barred
Civil Appeal No. 635 of 2018 related to excise duty under Central Excises Act, 1944 ('the Act') and related rules
Timeframe provided in the Act and related rules for passing order post show cause notice is 45 days under Section 33(3), which was flouted, hence the order in original in the appeal too was time-barred
The provisions prescribing timeframe for passing order in original, consequent to a show cause notice, were held to be mandatory
The orders-in-original, were barred by time
Impugned judgments were set aside and appeals were allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.
The primary question which requires prior consideration is as to whether the timeframe provided for passing orders, post issuance of show cause notices was followed as required under the relevant statutes.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The record reflects as under: Civil Appeal No. 634/2018 [relating to sales tax recovery]: Show Cause Notice Date : 30.06.2000 Corrigenda Dates : 14.11.2000 and 18.05.2002 Period between SCN and 1st Corrigendum : 136 days (4 months and 14 days) Period between SCN and 2nd Corrigendum : 686 days Period in between Corrigenda : 1 year 4 months 17 days (549) Order-in-Original passed on : 02.02.2001 Period between SCN and Order-in-Original : 216 days Civil Appeal No. 635/2018 [relating to excise duty]: Show Cause Notice Date : 07.09.1999 Corrigendum Date : 18.05.2002 Period between SCN and Corrigendum : 2 years, 8 months and 10 days. Order-in-Original Passed on : 25.01.2000 Period between SCN and Order-in-Original : 139 days. Civil Appeal No. 636/2018 [relating to sales tax recovery]: Show Cause Notice Date : 12.12.2001 Order-in-Original passed on : 20.04.2002 Period between SCN and Order-in-Original : 128 days Despite two corrigendum issued, the events to invoke either sections 36(1) and 36(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ( ST Act ) were not disclosed. It is only in the second corrigendum that section 36(1) of the Act with disclosing event required under the relevant law, was introduced for the first time. Nonetheless, the record reflects that under second proviso to section 36(3) of the Act, the order under the relevant subsection shall be made within 120 days of the issuance of the show cause notice or within such extended period as the Commissioner may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, fix, provided that such extended period in no case shall exceed 60 days. In the first chart, the show cause notice was issued on 30.06.2000 and in consideration thereof the order in original was passed on 02.02.2001, which is much beyond the timeframe required under the law. However, in appeal (Civil Appeal No. 636 of 2018) (3rd chart), relating to sales tax there is no extension in timeframe within section 36(3) of the Act; thus, the order in original should have been passed in 120 days. The orders in original were time barred.
3. Civil Appeal No. 635 of 2018 (2nd chart) related to excise duty under Central Excises Act, 1944 ( the Act ) and related rules. Timeframe provided in the Act and related rules for passing order post show cause notice is 45 days under section 33(3), which is flouted, hence the order in original in the appeal too is time-barred.
4. For what has been discussed above and in view of the judgment of the Larger Bench in Wak Case1, the provisions prescribing timeframe for passing order in original, consequence to a show cause notice, are held to be mandatory. The orders-in-original, were barred by time and hence, in view of the dicta laid down, the consequential effect must also fail. Applying the ratio of the cited judgment passed by the Larger Bench, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments are set-aside. UN/W-8/SC Appeals allowed. 1 Wak Limited Multan Road, Lahore v. Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore (2025 SCMR 1280).