Statutory period

2026 SCMR 610 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 174(3), provisoMaintaining of recordStatutory period

Authorities were aggrieved of restriction imposed by High Court for not seeking record from respondent / taxpayer because of statutory timeframe

Validity

Matter pertained to deemed assessment for tax year 2010 and show cause notice and reassessment orders dated 27-02-2015, which were within timeframe prescribed by law and fell within proviso to Section 174(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Cognizance was taken within five years when notice was issued and notwithstanding the interim order in case/litigation on the subject of challenging the notice, respondent / taxpayer was bound to retain documents under the law

Whether or not any stay was operative in the matter, if the cause was sub-judice it was enough for proviso to kick in and dilute the effect of six year timeframe till the matter was taken to its logical end under the law, provided that the initial notice was also within time prescribed by law

Requisite proviso had enabled the authorities to act accordingly

Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court to the extent of such direction

Appeal was allowed.

2026 PTD 753 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 174(3), provisoMaintaining of recordStatutory period

Authorities were aggrieved of restriction imposed by High Court for not seeking record from respondent / taxpayer because of statutory timeframe

Validity

Matter pertained to deemed assessment for tax year 2010 and show cause notice and reassessment orders dated 27-02-2015, which were within timeframe prescribed by law and fell within proviso to Section 174(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Cognizance was taken within five years when notice was issued and notwithstanding the interim order in case/litigation on the subject of challenging the notice, respondent / taxpayer was bound to retain documents under the law

Whether or not any stay was operative in the matter, if the cause was sub-judice it was enough for proviso to kick in and dilute the effect of six year timeframe till the matter was taken to its logical end under the law, provided that the initial notice was also within time prescribed by law

Requisite proviso had enabled the authorities to act accordingly

Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court to the extent of such direction

Appeal was allowed.

2026 PTD 367 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 131(5), Second & Third Provisos

Letter No.5030/DDJ/PE&CB/PRA dated 29.04.2025, issued by Director General, Directorate of District Judiciary of Lahore High Court

Appeal before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, filing of

Stay, grant of

Extension of stay

Scope

Statutory period

Scope

Appellant/Taxpayer (Applicant) sought extension of the stay order granted by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Tribunal) while having already availed stay for 270 days

Applicant filed application whereas Director General, Directorate of District Judiciary of Lahore High Court issued directions qua stay vide Letter No.5030/DDJ/PE&CB/PRA dated 29.04.2025 ('directions-in-question')

Validity

[Per Nasir Mahmud, Member]

Pursuant to directions-in-question, instant application seeking extension of stay cannot be granted as it is an admitted fact that the legally stipulated period of 90 days had already expired; therefore, in the subsistence of directions-in-question, further extension of stay could not be allowed

Per Rao Muhammad Nasir Jamil, Member] Taxpayer filed appeal before the Tribunal (on 16.05.2024) and fulfilled his responsibility by engaging in the hearing of case before the Tribunal

The main appeal was previously fixed (on 02.10.2024) but sent for re-hearing due to non-functioning of relevant Division Bench

After that said / relevant Bench had been re-constituted by the Chairman (vide his order dated 09.05.2025) which started functioning on 12.05.2025, the Miscellaneous Application for stay had been fixed before the Bench on 22.05.2025, however, the main appeal was yet to be fixed before the said Bench owing to huge burden of appeals, the case of the appellant was still pending adjudication and the fixation of hearing of case had not been done so far

In such situation there did not seem to be any fault of the taxpayer, therefore, he could not be denied stay against recovery

Moreover, to get refund in case of any recovery done by the Department against any tax due which would be still sub-judice before the Tribunal if the case would go in favour of the taxpayer

Practically, the same was not free from hardship and huge expenses

Though tax law prohibits to grant stay upto 90 days, yet the Tribunal has inherent power to grant stay beyond statutory period where the decision is pending

Direction to issue stay upto a maximum limit is directory and not mandatory

Reliance by the other Member, hearing this case, on directions-in-question was mis-placed while referring against grant of stay in the present case

Para iv of the directions-in-question stated that "The Presiding Officer shall not extend stay orders beyond the period stipulated under the law" from which it was crystal clear that the matter was to be dealt under the law whereas under the law the 3rd proviso of S.131(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, opened a window and relaxed the condition as enumerated in 2nd proviso by stating that where an appeal was not decided within the statutory period by the Appellate Tribunal, the stay order under the 2nd Proviso shall not cease to have effect till finalization of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal

Since serious difference of opinion had arisen in the present case, hence, the matter may very kindly be referred to the Chairman for nomination of any third/ refree Member or constitute a Full Bench to resolve the relevant questions/propositions arising in wake of directions-in-question

Application for extention of stay was disposed of accordingly.

2021 PLD 489 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7 & 12Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, cl. 9(5)Drug pricingHardship caseStatutory period

Petitioners were manufacturers of different medicines and were aggrieved of inaction of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) in fixing Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of their products in question

Validity

If hardship applications were not attended to by DRAP in a timely manner or if after due consideration of an application by DRAP, Federal Government did not act within the envisaged timeframe so as to notify prices as per referral made, then applicant could increase its MRP up to the level recommended by DPC of DRAP

Such option could only be exercised once in three years

Specified time frame had lapsed so as to trigger inbuilt mechanism for increase in price by petitioners

High Court directed the authorities to make final decision in relation to MRP of the products in question within a period of 30 days

High Court restrained the authorities from taking any coercive action against petitioners during the pendency of proceedings

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2015 PLD 154 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Aryt.199Constitutional petitionPreventive detentionStatutory periodPreventive detention of petitioners was extended for more than 90 days without any reference to BoardValidity

Consecutive extension exceeding the period of three months was also against the law, as under S.3(5-a) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, no person could be detained for a period exceeding three months unless the Board had reported before expiration of the period of three months, that there was in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention

Petitioner had been detained for more than stipulated period by way of extending preventive detention, without constituting any Board and sufficient cause

High Court set aside order of detention of petitioner and set him at liberty

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2013 PLC 166 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 47(4)(11) & (12)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionStatutory periodStay of judgmentObject, purpose and scope

Operation of judgment passed by Labour Court in favour of workman was suspended by Labour Appellate Tribunal but the order of suspension was applicable only to the extent of ninety days

Employer sought extension in stay order against judgment passed by Labour Court

Validity

Time period was statutory and stay order lapsed automatically

Legislature did not place any condition or visualized any circumstances in which stay order could be extended in case Appellate Tribunal could not decide appeal

Placing time limit and providing for automatic vacation of stay on expiry of ninety days was a conscious and deliberate effort on the part of law maker to protect the interest of employee

Where a workman (who was on the weaker end of economic spectrum) had been reinstated by Labour Court, he could not be kept out of his job for indefinitely on the basis of stay order issued by Labour Appellate Tribunal

On the balance of respective inconveniences and financial strengths, employer was much better placed to be able to pay a reinstated employee for work done compared to a workman, who had succeeded before Labour Court and should have to wait indefinitely for appeal to be decided, where he was in no position to do

Extending stay order beyond period of ninety days would in effect constitute an amendment of statute by extension of a period which was fixed by statute

Such course of action was not permissible under the law and it would defeat not only spirit of law in question but also intent of legislature which was apparent from plain language of the statute

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked to deflect express provisions of statutory law

Where statute was clear that interim relief would automatically lapse after ninety days, extension of same beyond statutory period, while main appeal was pending in Labour Appellate Tribunal, was neither justified nor supported by sound principles of interpretation

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.