| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1429 2020 SLD 1429 2020 PTD 1275 (2021) 123 TAX 282 2021 PTCL 354 |
Islamabad High Court
T.As. Nos. 13 of 2003, 85 and 91 of 2002, decided on 14th January, 2020.
AAMER FAROOQ, JUSTICE LUBNA SALEEM PERVEZ, JUSTICE
Dr. Farhat Zafar for Appellant (In all Cases). Ms. Shaista Altaf for
Respondents (in T.A. No. 13 of 2003). Farhat Nawaz Lodhi and Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for
Respondents (in T.A. No.85 of 2002). Tariq Rashid for
Respondents (in T.A. No.91 of 2002).
T.As. Nos. 13 of 2003, 85 and 91 of 2002, decided on 14th January, 2020.
AAMER FAROOQ, JUSTICE LUBNA SALEEM PERVEZ, JUSTICE
Dr. Farhat Zafar for Appellant (In all Cases). Ms. Shaista Altaf for
Respondents (in T.A. No. 13 of 2003). Farhat Nawaz Lodhi and Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for
Respondents (in T.A. No.85 of 2002). Tariq Rashid for
Respondents (in T.A. No.91 of 2002).
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS.
VS
MESSRS DANDOT CEMENT COMPANY LTD., LAHORE AND OTHERS
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 30,47,47(2),39
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)-- Ss. 47 39--Appeal to High Court under S.47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990-Persons competent to file appeal-Jurisdiction defect- "Law officer" filing / verifying appeal on behalf of Department- Scope--Legislature for purposes of instituting appeal under S. 47 of the Sates Tax Act, 1990 had specifically assigned such responsibility to Collector and made him competent authority and thus neither he could delegate nor any other person / officer could substitute for Collector without Legislative approval to sign, verify and file appeal before High Court-Under S.30 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 no officer had been listed as "law officer", therefore such officer could not sign, verify and file appeal on behalf of Department under S. 47 of Sales Tax Act, 1990. Director Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation, Customs and Excise, Karachi v. Al-Faiz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., 2004 PTD 2987 and 2006 SCMR 129 rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: AAMER FAROOQ, JUSTICE:---.--- This consolidated order shall decide the above mentioned appeals as common questions of law and facts are involved. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the Respondents raised certain objection regarding maintainability of the present appeals. As the preliminary objection raised relates to the maintainability of the present appeals and since, it is a jurisdictional defect thus same required to be decided before hearing the-appeals on merits, hence, learned Counsel were asked to advance arguments on the maintainability of the appeals. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that present appeals are not maintainable due to the reason that same have been signed, verified and filed by a Law Officer of the Collectorate of Sales Tax who was not the competent authority in this regard under section 47(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1990). Learned Counsel in support of their contention relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Sindh High Court re: Director Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation, Customs and Excise, Karachi v. Al-Faiz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., reported as (2004 PTD 2987 Khi HC) and submitted that said judgment was…
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