1991 PLP 495 (PTD)
KARACHI Versus Messrs DIAMOND RUBBER MILLS LTD.
| Citation | 1991 PLP 495 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi high Court |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, JJ |
| Parties | KARACHI Versus Messrs DIAMOND RUBBER MILLS LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 495 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 495 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi high Court bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 495 (PTD) (KARACHI Versus Messrs DIAMOND RUBBER MILLS LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.
This is an application for reference under section 17(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951. It relates to the assessment year 1970-71. The Sales Tax Officer issued notice under section 28 allowing the assessee a period of three days only for riling the returns. Against the assessment the respondent appealed and the same was cancelled on the ground that period of 30 days was curtailed and, therefore, the entire assessment was void ab initio. The department then Filed the appeal before the Tribunal which was also dismissed. The applicant then filed application for reference which wits also rejected. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal observed that during the assessment year it has been held that the respondent was not carrying on any business, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in referring the question to the High Court. By this application the applicant seeks to raise the following three questions:-- (1) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the learned Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the A.A.C's decision and admitting the assessee's plea that notice under section 28 was invalid despite the case that this question was never raised before the Assessing Authority" (2) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the learned Appellate Tribunal wits justified in upholding that notices issued under section 28 were not valid because it did not contain 35 days for filing of return? (3) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the learned Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding that there was minimum mandatory period of 35 days for filing of return requiring under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act? So far the question of not carrying on business is concerned, it does not seem to have been challenged at any stage. Therefore, this factual position remains there. Considering from this point of view none of those questions will have any relevance. In any event questions Nos.2 and 3 have been decided by host of authorities of our Court namely 1983 P T D 271, 1985 P T D 282, 1985 P T D 541 and 1989 P T D
145. Therefore, in view of these authorities, the law is well-settled and it is not necessary to raise these questions. So far the first question is concerned, if any proceeding is void ab initio, then such question can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The application is dismissed. M.BA./C-185/K Application dismissed.