| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 1556 2013 SLD 1556 2013 SCMR 587 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Review Petitions Nos.47-L to 49-L of 2012 in Civil Petitions Nos.1691-L to 1693-L of 2008, decision dated: 9-01-2013. (To review this Courts judgment dated 18-6-2012 passed by this Court in Civil Petitions Nos.1691-L to 1693-L of 2008)
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ
Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood ul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Civil Review Petitions Nos.47-L to 49-L of 2012 in Civil Petitions Nos.1691-L to 1693-L of 2008, decision dated: 9-01-2013. (To review this Courts judgment dated 18-6-2012 passed by this Court in Civil Petitions Nos.1691-L to 1693-L of 2008)
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ
Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood ul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Messrs BLUE STAR SPINNING MILLS LTD.
VS
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Review of Supreme Court ---Void order---Limitation for challenging a void order---Scope---Sales Tax Department passed order in original against the petitioner-company---Appeal filed against such order was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal as being time-barred---Petitioner-company contended that order in original passed by Department was a void order; that no limitation ran against a void order, and that such aspect was not appreciated by the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme Court---Validity---Rule that no limitation ran against a void order was not an inflexible rule---Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings---Appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal was admittedly time-barred, and was rightly dismissed as being hit by limitation and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was found---High Court agreed with the order of Appellate Tribunal---Supreme Court had affirmed concurrent findings recorded by fora below---Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Muhammad Fazil PLD 1975 SC 331 and Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. PLD 1997 SC 397 rel. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S.3---Void order---Limitation for challenging a void order---Scope---Rule that no limitation ran against a void order was not an inflexible rule---Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings. Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Muhammad Fazil PLD 1975 SC 331 and Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. PLD 1997 SC 397 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 188---Review of Supreme Court ---Scope---Supreme Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction could not sit as a court of appeal against its own order. ORDER TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---This order shall…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492