1987 PLP 2004 (CLC)
BOSTAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE and TAXATION,
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2004 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kiani, J |
| Parties | BOSTAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE and TAXATION, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2004 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2004 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2004 (CLC) (BOSTAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE and TAXATION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iqbal Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑‑
0. XLI, R. 5‑‑Appeal‑‑Interim relief during pendency of appeal, grant of‑‑Right of appeal, held, was a substantive right and where such right existed appellate Court was possessed oaf power to grant interim relief‑‑Exercise of such a power was in discrction of a Court either to grant interim relief or to order stay which depended on circumstances of each case and it was for appellate Court to decide for relief whether a case for stay was made out or not. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Art. 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
0. XLI, R. 5‑‑Capital Gain Tax Rules, 1964‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Grant of interim relief‑ Petitioner's appeal pending before appellate Court and his application, filed in appeal before said Court for grant of stay order, not decided as yet‑‑Petitioner meanwhile coming to High Court in constitutional jurisdiction for interim relief‑‑Petitioner also having a remedy under Capital Gain Tax Rules, 1964‑‑Constitutional petition, held, was not an appropriate remedy in circumstances and petitioner could press Appellate Court for early hearing and early decision of his appeal‑ Interference declined in constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑‑
0. XLI, R. 5‑‑Appeal‑‑Interim relief during pendency of appeal, grant of‑‑Right of appeal, held, was a substantive right and where such right existed appellate Court was possessed oaf power to grant interim relief‑‑Exercise of such a power was in discrction of a Court either to grant interim relief or to order stay which depended on circumstances of each case and it was for appellate Court to decide for relief whether a case for stay was made out or not. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Art. 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
0. XLI, R. 5‑‑Capital Gain Tax Rules, 1964‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Grant of interim relief‑ Petitioner's appeal pending before appellate Court and his application, filed in appeal before said Court for grant of stay order, not decided as yet‑‑Petitioner meanwhile coming to High Court in constitutional jurisdiction for interim relief‑‑Petitioner also having a remedy under Capital Gain Tax Rules, 1964‑‑Constitutional petition, held, was not an appropriate remedy in circumstances and petitioner could press Appellate Court for early hearing and early decision of his appeal‑ Interference declined in constitutional jurisdiction. Iqbal Ahmad for Petitioner. Petitioner was found liable to pay Rs.31,400 as gains tax assessed on the value of the property sold by him to one Ghulam Nabi, on 21‑4‑1986. Against order dated 12‑5‑1986, an appeal has been filed by petitioner. It is stated to be still pending. Alongwith the appeal, an application for suspension of the impugned order was made. Learned counsel states that no order has so far been passed on the application for stay. In these circumstances, a petition underArticle 199 of the Constitution has been filed in this Court. It is claimed that an appropriate writ be issued to quash the demand and respondent No. 1 before whom the appeal was pending be directed to decide the same. Though right of appeal is a substantive right and where it exists the appellate Court is possessed of power to grant interim relief, but exercise of such a power is in the discretion of a Court. It can either grant the interim relief or refuse to order stay. All depends on the circumstances of each case and it is for the appellate authority to decide for itself, whether a case for stay is made out or not. In the circumstances, course open to the petitioner is to press for decision on his, application for interim relief before the appellate authority and in case he does not succeed remedy for him is provided in the Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964. Writ petition is not an appropriate remedy. Likewise, petitioner can apply for early hearing of his appeal and also press for its early decision before the appellate authority. With these observations, I do not see any merits in the writ petition and proceed to order its dismissal summarily. M . Y . H . / B‑16 / 2 Petition dismissed