| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 600 2021 SLD 600 2021 SCMR 375 2021 PTCL 633 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 2021-L to 2025-L of 2015, decided on 15th December, 2020, Date of hearing: 15th December, 2020. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 17.06.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in WTA Nos. 189 to 193 of 2003)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (Through video link from Lahore). Amir Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
Civil Petitions Nos. 2021-L to 2025-L of 2015, decided on 15th December, 2020, Date of hearing: 15th December, 2020. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 17.06.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in WTA Nos. 189 to 193 of 2003)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (Through video link from Lahore). Amir Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
MESSRS LIBERTY CAR PARKING (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR
VS
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (EX-COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX), LAHORE AND OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VI,R.14,O.XXIX,R.1
Law: Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)
Section: 2(18),27
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, R.14 O. XXIX, R. 1---Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), S. 2(18)---Wealth Tax Appeals filed by a company without a resolution from the Board of Directors, but duly signed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)---Sufficient compliance---Ratification of appeals---Scope---Company was a juristic entity and it could duly authorize any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---Person may be expressly authorized either by the Board of Directors or by a power of attorney---However, in absence thereof and in cases where pleadings had been signed by one of its officers, the same could be accredited by the company by express or implied action---In the present case, the appeals filed before the High Court were not authorized by Board of Directors by proper resolution but they were duly signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner-company---Definition of principal officer provided in S. 2(18) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 clearly showed that the Chief Executive Officer was the principal officer and if he had signed the appeals before the High Court, the same would be accorded as express ratification by the company---In such circumstances the High Court ought to have decided the appeals on merits and not on technical grounds---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed, and the case was remanded back to the High Court to decide the appeals filed by the petitioner-company afresh in accordance with law. Rahat and Co. v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan PLD 2020 SC 366 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, R.14 O. XXIX, R. 1---Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), S. 2(18)---Wealth Tax Appeals filed by a company without a resolution…
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