Law:

Section:

 Summary A reference was filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue which had dismissed the applicant’s appeal as time-barred after rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The applicant argued that the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner was void, and therefore limitation would not run against it. The High Court held that merely challenging the reasoning or legality of an order does not render it void when the authority passing the order had jurisdiction. The Court further observed that even if an order is void, limitation begins to run from the date of knowledge, and a party cannot sleep on its rights. Since the applicant delayed filing the appeal even after receiving the order, the Tribunal rightly dismissed it as barred by limitation. The reference was therefore dismissed. Tag Line An order does not become void merely because its reasoning is challenged, and even against a void order limitation runs from the date of knowledge of the aggrieved party. ORDER; Babar Sattar, J:- This reference arises from a judgment of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad (“Tribunal”) dated 22.10.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal had dismissed an application for condonation of delay and accordingly had found that the appeal was barred by limitation. He submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 05.10.2023, was never served on the applicant. The applicant ultimately procured a copy of the order by filing an application with the Tax Department. In dismissing the applicant's application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal did not appreciate that the Order-in-Original was a void order and no limitation runs against the void order. When asked as to the basis of the applicant's assertion that the Order-in-Original was void, he submitted that the order suffered from legal infirmities such that it ought to be deemed a void order. When asked as to whether the Deputy Commissioner who passed the Order-in-Original was devoid of…