2002 PLP 506 (PTD)
Messrs HASEEB WAQAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED through Chief Executive Versus THE COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 2002 PLP 506 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs HASEEB WAQAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED through Chief Executive Versus THE COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 506 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 506 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 506 (PTD) (Messrs HASEEB WAQAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED through Chief Executive Versus THE COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Jamil Khan and Abid Ali Sheikh for Appellant
- Date of hearing 21st November, 2001
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.
The appeal filed by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal under section 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was dismissed after it was found that the delay in filing thereof had not been properly explained. 2: Although the Tribunal has not mentioned the exact time in terms of days by which the appeal before them was barred by limitation, we are of the view that it was negligible. In a recent judgment in C.A. No.323 of 2001 we have examined the provisions of section 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 which provide for appeal to the Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the date of communication of the order. In that order we have examined the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under subsection (2) of section 46 of the Act which allows them a discretion to admit any appeal preferred after the period of limitation.
3. For various reasons stated in the order this Court expressed the view that unless an assessee was contumacious a prayer for condonation of delay in filing appals should be considered objectively. Particularly for the reason that by delaying an appeal the assessee does not stand to gain anything nor a delay on his part gives rise to or creates a valuable right in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, we directed that the delay of 43 days in filing of the appeal ought to have been condoned.
4. For different reasons contained in that order we will allow this appeal as well. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal shall be deemed pending which will be heard and decided on merits in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. C.M.A./M.A.K./A-368/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.