1981 SCMR 536 (PLP)
(PANAMA) INC., U. S. A.-Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE-Respondent
| Citation | 1981 SCMR 536 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | (PANAMA) INC., U. S. A.-Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 SCMR 536 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 SCMR 536 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 SCMR 536 (PLP) ((PANAMA) INC., U. S. A.-Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Iftikharuddin Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This order will dispose of C. Ps. S. L. A. Nos. 175/77, 176/77, 177/77, 178/77, and 179/77, arising from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court in. the relevant Tax Reference mentioned therein.
2. The above-mentioned petitions have been filed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 20-11-1975. Each petition is barred by 414 days. There is no application for condonation of delay nor any ground has been advanced otherwise in that respect either before us or in the petitions explaining each day of limitation. These petitions are consequently fable to be dismissed as time-barred. We hold and direct accordingly.
3. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had filed four miscellaneous applications (one in each Tax Reference) in the High Court praying for a certificate of fitness under section 66-A(2) of the Income-tax Act for appeal to this Court. These applications were rejected on 7-2-1977, on the ground that according to (1973) Constitution certificates of this kind prayed for could no longer be granted by a High Court. In this respect they relied upon Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore v. Umar Saigol (P L D 1.975 Lah. 1558), decided on 16-10-1975. The miscellaneous applications aforesaid were filed subsequently some where in February, 1976 after the aforesaid judgment of the High Court had received due publication in law reports. However, taking benefit of that order it has been prayed that "leave may graciously be granted to appeal to this Court against the order and judgment dated 7-2-1977 of Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4/Coin-S/76 read with its judgment and order dated 20-11-1975 passed in T. R. No. 1/74". (This is the form of relief claimed in C. P. 175/77 and the reliefs claimed in the other petitions are of the same pattern and in each petition, reference of the relevant Tax Reference from which it arises has also been given). In this respect all we need observe is that since we have already dismissed the petitions against the main judgment, mere adding a prayer for leave to appeal against the order dated 7-2-1977 "read with judgment and order dated 20-11-1975", would neither extend the period of limitation for the main petitions and nor would it affect that judgment or order otherwise. The main petitions in any case remain time-barred and their period of limitation could not be extended in the manner adopted herein.
4. The result is that these petitions have no merit and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed,