Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 828 2017 SLD 828 2017 PTD 1044
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
M.A. (Stay) No. 97/KB and I.T.A. No. 184/KB of 2014, decided on 7th March, 2014.
MUHAMMAD, JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, FARZANA, JABEEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SEARLE COMPANY LTD.

VS

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-IV, LTU, KARACHI

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 128(1A),131(5),135

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: OrderXLI,Rule33

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)- -Ss. 128(1-A) & 131(5)-Appeal against refusal to grant stay order- Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals)/Appellate Authority, refused to grant stay order on the ground that taxpayer having already availed 30 days, further stay could not be granted-Taxpayer, since the institution of main appeal before the appellate authority, had made strenuous efforts to ensure the speedy and efficacious disposal of the appeal-Taxpayer had attended the office of functionary and conducted several hearings, but no order was passed by appellate authority as the functionary was transferred-Successor authority re-fixed appeal, but case was adjourned due to slackness of department-Taxpayer faced hardship and appeal could not be concluded on the pretext that the department had not filed the comments-Taxpayer could not be penalized or punished due to negligence/act of the department- Tribunal observed that where the appeal was lying pending adjudication or reserved for orders and was not disposed of for any reason that would amount denial of justice and violation of appellant's substantive legal/vested and constitutional right-Main appeal had not been disposed of by the appellate authority, even after passing of 60 days of the order of the Tribunal-Taxpayer was not on fault-Taxpayer ought to file stay application once again before the appellate authority would also be at liberty to avail the constitutional remedy or could knock the door of any appropriate forum-Appellate authority, was directed to pass speaking, judicial decision on main appeal within six working days. 2010 PTD (Trib.) 557 and 1996 PTD (Trib.) 388 ref. (b) Administration of justice- -Courts and quasi judicial officers, were required, not only to do meaningful speedy justice, but also must perform their duties in such a manner that justice was seen to have been done. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUHAMMAD JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:---.--- In the instant case the appeal against refusal of stay by the learned CIR(A-III), Karachi vide his order No. CIR (A-III)2013-14/590 dated 27.2.2013 on the ground that the taxpayer has already availed 30 days, therefore, as per section 128(1A)…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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