2023 PLP 476 (SCMR)
and another — Petitioners Versus ZAIN UL ABIDIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 476 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Faez Isa and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ |
| Parties | and another — Petitioners Versus ZAIN UL ABIDIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 476 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 476 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Faez Isa and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 476 (SCMR) (and another — Petitioners Versus ZAIN UL ABIDIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yousaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 06.09.2022 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Customs Reference No. 21-P of 2022)
Scope
If decisions are assailed they should be done within the prescribed period, and it should not be assumed that delay would be condoned when there is no valid reason to condone the same.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Faez Isa, J. This petition for leave to appeal assails the order dated 6 September 2022 passed in Customs Reference No. 21-P/2022, which had upheld the order dated 25 January 2022 passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench, which had in turn upheld the order-in-original dated 13 August 2021 passed by the Additional Collector, Collectorate of Customs (Adjudication) Islamabad, Camp Office Peshawar. Therefore, three concurrent decisions have been assailed herein.
2. The petition has been belatedly filed with a delay of 11 days. Through C.M.A. No. 10322/2022 the said delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that formalities needed to be fulfilled and 'permission of high-ups for filing the petition' was sought, which was awaited.
3. We enquired from the learned counsel about the amount of revenue involved and were told that it was 2.8 million rupees, whereas on the petition court-fee of 250 rupees was payable. We next enquired whether the person responsible for the belated filing was proceeded against and were informed that this was not done.
4. Surprisingly, the petitioners elected to jeopardise a claim of 2.8 million rupees merely to save court-fee of 250 rupees. If it was subsequently decided against the filing of the petition it could have been withdrawn. The petitioners lost sight of the larger goal by jeopardising 2.8 million rupees to save 250 rupees.
5. If decisions are assailed they should be done within the prescribed period, and it should not be assumed that delay would be condoned when there is no valid reason to condone the same, as in the instant case. Therefore, the said application is dismissed and, consequently, the petition for leave to appeal is also dismissed.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue. MWA/C-3/SC Petition dismissed.