| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 526 2026 SLD 526 |
Sindh High Court
Special STRA 173 of 2024
Presented By:
Mr. Shamshad Ahmed, advocate
Special STRA 173 of 2024
Presented By:
Mr. Shamshad Ahmed, advocate
Law: Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011
Section: 63(5)
ORDER SHEET For orders on CMA No.3827/2024. For hearing of main case. For orders on CMA No.3828/2024. 24.03.2026 Mr. Shamshad Ahmed, advocate This reference remains pending since 2024 in the docket without any progress. The order sheet demonstrates that the applicant has made no effort to ever have the matter listed / heard since filing hereof. The matter was listed today and it was observed that the learned appellate tribunal had merely remanded the matter for adjudication afresh on 15.08.2024. Prima facie it is a simple remand order rendered almost a year and a half ago and no finding adverse finding, with regard to either party, has been demonstrated before the Court. Applicant‟s learned counsel was queried as to the fate of the remand proceedings, however, he professed to be unaware of any information in such regard. As a general principle, a reference application against a remand order is seldom entertained; unless it can be demonstrated that a manifest prejudice is being caused to the position of either party[1]. No such apprehension has been articulated herein. Earlier Division bench judgments have consistently deprecated the tendency to mechanically assail remand orders; as recently reiterated by this Court in Philip Morris[2]. Since no question of law has been articulated before us coupled with binding nature of the authority cited supra, therefore, this reference is found to be frivolous and misconceived, hence, dismissed. Respectfully, the matter ought not to end here. The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that the fiscal docket in the superior courts has been clogged with unmerited litigation, including that precipitated / perpetuated at the behest of Revenue. The Supreme Court considers such conduct as that of a habitual litigant in the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Umar Tariq Khan[3] especially paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 thereof; that read as follows: “8. When government departments routinely file appeals/petitions (often up to…