2016 PLP (Trib (PTD)
Messrs AHMAD TRADERS, GUJRANWALA Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA
| Citation | 2016 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Anwaar ul Haq, Judicial Member |
| Parties | Messrs AHMAD TRADERS, GUJRANWALA Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Anwaar ul Haq, Judicial Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP (Trib (PTD) (Messrs AHMAD TRADERS, GUJRANWALA Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 46---Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2010, R.27---Delay in filing appeal---Condonation of delay---Registered person filed appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Appellate Authority---None appeared on behalf of registered person on the date of hearing of appeal---Application for adjournment was received on behalf of registered person through courier post---Counsel of registered person, repeatedly sent adjournment applications by post in a causal manner---Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2010, provided that the Tribunal, could, if sufficient cause was shown, adjourn the hearing of appeal or application on request made by the party or authorized representative and no request for adjournment sent through post or fax could be entertained---Since no one on behalf of the registered person appeared at the time of hearing, application seeking adjournment was refused and appeal was dismissed, being barred by time, in circumstances.
- Nemo for Appellant.
- Ms. Bushra Fatima, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 2016.
Judgment & Decree
CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ (JUDICIAL MEMBER).
The titled sales tax appeal has been preferred at the instance of registered person, calling in question the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.22/2012, dated 12.07.2012 passed by the learned CIR(A) Gujranwala.
2. None appeared on behalf of registered person while Ms. Bushra Fatima, represented the Department. Today, an application for adjournment on behalf of the registered person has been received through courier post which is signed by one Mr. Muhammad Faisal Iqbal, ITP/AR of the registered person, seeking adjournment for a later date. The counsel of the registered person repeatedly sending adjournment applications by post in a causal manner, seeking adjournment on the ground that "due to my professional engagement and short time necessary documents could not be prepared in the subject case".
3. Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2010 provides that the Tribunal may, if sufficient cause is shown, adjourn the hearing of appeal or application on a request being made by the party or authorized representative and no request for adjournment sent through post or fax may be entertained. Since no one on behalf of the registered person is appeared at the time of hearing. Hence the application seeking adjournment is refused.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the present appeal filed by the registered on 07.12.2012, is time barred. In this behalf office of this Tribunal vide letter dated 20.02.2012, requested the learned CIR(A), Gujranwala to intimate the exact service of impugned appellate order upon the registered person. The learned CIR(A) vide letter No.577, dated 22.01.2013, intimated that the impugned appellate order was served upon the registered person on 27.09.2012. Thereafter, the office vide letter dated 13.02.2013, communicated the discrepancy to the registered person. The contents of this letter are reproduced hereunder:-- "Please refer to the above noted case has been filed in this Tribunal and to inform the respondent that the said appeal is are time barred by 11 days. The question of limitation will be decided first by the Bench at the time of hearing of appeal."
5. Almost after the laps of about 03 years, the Registered Person even not bothered to reply the said letter dated 13-02-2013 of this Tribunal nor any application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal was received. Therefore, after due consideration, the present appeal is dismissed in limini being barred by time. HBT/53/Tax(Trib.) Appeal dismissed.