2005 PLP 101 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus STANDARD FOOD
| Citation | 2005 PLP 101 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus STANDARD FOOD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 101 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 101 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 101 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus STANDARD FOOD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ilyas Khan for Appellant.
- Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th December, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.135 & 136
Rectification of earlier order
Validity-- Order under appeal was passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on miscellaneous application
It was only an order passed under S.135 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which was amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of High Court
Order under appeal was recorded on miscellaneous application declining rectification of earlier order
Appeal was not maintainable in circumstances. Messrs Hong Kong Chinese Restaurant, Main Boulevard Gulberg, Lahore v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6, Lahore and another 2002 PTD 1878 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.
Learned counsel for the respondent has objected to the maintainability of this appeal under section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance and has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as Messrs Hong Kong Chinese Restaurant, Main Boulevard Gulberg, Lahore v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6, Lahore and another (2002 PTD 1878).
2. In that judgment this Court inter alia found that no appeal lay under the provisions of section 136 of the late Income Tax Ordinance against an order of the Tribunal recorded on a miscellaneous application. It was only an order of the Tribunal recorded under section 135 of the late Income Tax. Ordinance which was amenable to the appellant jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Since admittedly the impugned order was recorded on a miscellaneous application declining rectification of earlier order of the Tribunal, this further appeal is not competent.
4. Dismissed. M.H./C-24/L Appeal Dismissed: