| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1976 SLG 129 1976 SLD 129 (1976) 34 TAX 148 1976 PTD 1364 |
Lahore High Court
Tax Reference No. 53 of 1967, decision dated: 9-3-1976, hearing DATE : 9-03-1976
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Ilyas Khan, for the Appellant. Rana Abdur Rahim, for the
Respondent
Tax Reference No. 53 of 1967, decision dated: 9-3-1976, hearing DATE : 9-03-1976
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Ilyas Khan, for the Appellant. Rana Abdur Rahim, for the
Respondent
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, Lahore High Court
VS
CLIMAX ENGINEERING CO. LTD., GUJRANWALA
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 33(2A)
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 33(2A)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: OrderVI,rules14,15
Income-tax Act, 1922 -- Section 33(2A) -- Appeal to Appellate Tribunal -- Limitation -- Condonation of delay -- Memorandum of appeal filed within the prescribed period of limitation -- Returned to the appellant after expiry of the period of limitation for want of signature and verification -- Memorandum of appeal duly signed and verified, represented within four days of its return -- Whether sufficient cause for condonation of delay -- Held yes -- JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.---Messrs Climax Engineering Co. Limited, Gujranwala, carry on the business of manufacture of taxable electric goods, such as, fans and fuse units and non-taxable items, such as, transformers and electric motors. The Sales Tax returns of the company were accepted as correct by the Sales Tax Officer and the Sales Tax charged by the Excise Authorities was accepted as correct. 2. The assessee filed an appeal as it alleged that it was for the Sales Tax Officer to have determined the Tax payable and claimed that more Tax had been charged from it than was due and it was entitled to refund on that account. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the appeal and directed the Sales Tax Officer to allow the refund. 3. The Sales Tax Officer, Investigation Circle V, Lahore, filed an appeal against this order. A preliminary objection was taken before the Tribunal by the assessee that the appeal was barred by time as it was filed in the shape of a duly complete memorandum on 18th of May 1964, when the period allowed by law had already expired. 4. The Department took the stand that the appeal had in fact been presented on the 28th of March 1964, it was returned on the 14th of May 1964, by the Registrar with the observation that it was not complete since it did not bear the signatures of the appellant nor had it been verified. It was re-submitted after compliance within a period of three days, hence it was claimed that the period of limitation had not expired. 5. The submissions made by the Departmental Representative failed to find favour with the Tribunal wherefore it dismissed the appeal in limine. 6. The Commissioner of Sales Tax applied for reference of…
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