| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3511 = 1963 SLD 3511 = 1963 PLD 996 |
Sindh High Court
Supreme Court Petitions Nos. 141, 509, 510 and 571 of 1962, decided on 24th April 1963.
Presented By: Inamullah, Masud Ahmad and A. S. Faruqui, JJ
Ali Athar and H. S. Pirzada for Appellants. Noorul Arifin for
Respondent.
Supreme Court Petitions Nos. 141, 509, 510 and 571 of 1962, decided on 24th April 1963.
Presented By: Inamullah, Masud Ahmad and A. S. Faruqui, JJ
Ali Athar and H. S. Pirzada for Appellants. Noorul Arifin for
Respondent.
HARJINA & Co. (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL)- KARACHI
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 66-A
Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 66-A (2)-Application to High Court for grant of certificate of fitness-Right to seek leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Not repealed or taken away by Constitution of Pakistan, 1.962-Interpretation of Statutes-Rights under existing laws-Not to be supposed to have been repealed by implication unless intention clear from language-Constitution of Pakistan, 1962, Arts. 58, 60, 225-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 109 (c). Maxwell : "Interpretation of Statutes," 10th Ed., pp. 128, 160 ref. , JUDGMENT INAMULLAH, J.-This reference to the Full Bench has arisen from an application under sub-clause (2) of section 66-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act) for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. Sub-clause (2) of section 66-A runs as under :- "66-A (2). An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment of the High Court delivered on a reference made under section 66 in any case which the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court." Mr. Noorul Arifin, the learned Advocate for the Income-tax Department, took a preliminary objection that the application was not maintainable in view of clause (3) of Article 58 of the Constitution which lays down that an appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment, decree order or sentence of a High Court in a case to which clause (2) of this Article does not apply shall lie only if the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the assessee, has relied on Article 60 of the Constitution which lays down that in addition to the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by the Constitution the Supreme Court shall have such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by law. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Advocates of the parties it would be necessary to reproduce Articles 58 and 60 of the Constitution. They run as under :- " 58. (1) Subject to this Article, the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from judgments, decrees, orders or sentences of a High Court. (2) An appeal to…