| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 212 2011 SLD 212 2011 PTD 1140 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
M.A. (AG) No.131/LB of 2010 in S.T.A. No.130/LB of 2009 and M.A. (AG) No.132/LB of 2010 in S.T.A. No.131/LB of 2009, decision dated: 21st December, 2010
CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant AND Dr. Syed Ali Adnan Zaidi, D.R. for
Respondent
M.A. (AG) No.131/LB of 2010 in S.T.A. No.130/LB of 2009 and M.A. (AG) No.132/LB of 2010 in S.T.A. No.131/LB of 2009, decision dated: 21st December, 2010
CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant AND Dr. Syed Ali Adnan Zaidi, D.R. for
Respondent
Messrs AMTEX LTD., FAISALABAD
VS
CIR (RTO), FAISALABAD
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 45
(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---S. 45---Jurisdiction and powers of adjudication---Applications seeking permission to argue legal ground---Applicants had sought permission to argue legal ground that order was passed by the authority having no jurisdiction in the matter as per provisions of S.45 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Counsel for applicants had argued that since the grounds taken were purely of legal nature, those could be allowed to be agitated during the arguments---Validity---No doubt applicants had not taken before the final Appellate Authority, the grounds sought to be argued. through present applications for additional grounds, but applications merited acceptance for the reason that High Court in its 2002 PTD 541 had observed that word "additional grounds" itself implied that a ground not already taken was being stressed---Whatever be the reason when a lis was pending before the court or a judicial forum, entertainment of an additional ground should be a rule and not an exception---As the grounds sought to be agitated were legal and were going to the root of the case, applicants were permitted to agitate/argue the grounds mentioned in the application. Haji Mehr Din v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2002 PTD 541 ref. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Rules of procedure were meant to advance the case of administration of justice than to thwart it---Technicalities should never undermine the advancement of purpose for which judicial or quasi judicial forums were established by law---Every kind of such technicality could even be ignored, if directly or indirectly it hindered the process of justice; or due relief to which a party was found entitled to---Mere technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice; and a departure could justifiably be made, if required by the circumstances of the case---Refusal of audience by a Judicial Tribunal, was an extreme step and it ought to be avoided unless necessary in the interest of justice. Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 578 ref. (c) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Rules of Court/Judicial Forum---Status---Place of rules in judicial system 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