2015 PLP 2594 (YLR)
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-IX REGIONAL TAX OFFICE-II — Appellant Versus Messrs ENGLISH PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LINK KATTAR BUND ROAD, LAHORE — Respondent
| Citation | 2015 PLP 2594 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Ayesha A. Malik and Faisal Zaman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-IX REGIONAL TAX OFFICE-II — Appellant Versus Messrs ENGLISH PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LINK KATTAR BUND ROAD, LAHORE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 2594 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 2594 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mrs. Ayesha A. Malik and Faisal Zaman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 2594 (YLR) (COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-IX REGIONAL TAX OFFICE-II — Appellant Versus Messrs ENGLISH PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LINK KATTAR BUND ROAD, LAHORE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Ali Imran Rizvi for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 16-4-2014 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers in W.P.No.10212 of 2014.
2. Through that order on the consensus arrived at between the parties, the matter has been referred to the respondents for appropriate orders.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has been confronted with the situation that the impugned order is a consent order and was passed in presence of parties that too without objection, therefore, this Intra-Court Appeal is not competent.
4. Replying to the above, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is against law and facts.
5. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the impugned order was passed in presence of the parties and that too without objection, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable.
6. The above proposition has been dealt with and decided by this Court in judgment reported as Abdul Wahab and others v. Habib Ali and others (PLD 1969 Lah. 365) operative part of which is reproduced for convenience:-- "Apart from the technical bar in respect of appeal against decision based on consent, the party challenging such a decision cannot be allowed to argue that the Court passing the order did not follow the correct procedure in deciding the matter. The principle of estoppel by conduct applies with full force to such a situation. If a party, by its conduct, obliges the Court to adopt a course which is contrary to its practice, that party will be debarred from raising the objection as to the procedure, on the very salutary principle that after having led the Court to do a certain thing for the benefit of the parties, none of them can be allowed to challenge the same."
7. While discussing the import of judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Sh. Maqbool Elahi and others v. Khan Abdul Rehman (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 96), this Court has further held that:-- "The principle enunciated in this ruling supports our view that once a mode (procedure) is adopted by the High Court on the request of the parties, the decision given in pursuance of that mode should be given effect to. A necessary corollary of this rule will be that the, same parties are estopped from subsequently challenging that mode of decision in an appeal. Therefore in this view of the matter as well, there is no force in this appeal and merits to be dismissed in limine."
8. In view of the afore-noted, this Intra-Court Appeal is dismissed. MH/C-15/L Intra Court Appeal dismissed.