Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2040 2008 SLD 2040 2008 PTD 1383

C.M. Application No. Misc. 48/ST/IB of 2006, decision dated: 26-03-2008, hearing DATE : 4-03-2008
SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MUHAMMAD RAMZAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395


Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----S. 46---Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2006, R.21(4)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.21---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Miscellaneous application for recall of order---No one appeared on behalf of the appellant---Representative of Department was marked present, after noting attendance and without hearing either side, was reserved---Subsequently, was announced and appeal was dismissed on merits---Application for recalling the order by following the principles of natural justice and propriety and that appellant should be given an opportunity of being heard before deciding the appeal afresh---Validity---Appeal was simply adjourned and it was not clearly fixed for arguments---Adjourned date might be a date for further proceeding---Such date could not be styled as a "date of hearing"---Word "hearing" implies taking down of evidence or hearing arguments or where question relating to determination of case was considered---Unless Court was satisfied that it was date of hearing of the lis, it was not permissible to dismiss the same even for non-prosecution---Appeal was simply adjourned and on the later date nothing effective and germane to progress of appeal could be intended as productive functioning, constituting a step forward in matter rather than mere fixation of date for formal proceedings---Rules of procedure were not to be too technically applied but were construed to foster cause of justice---Courts had always preferred decision of cases on merits instead of knocking out a party on technical grounds---Appellate Tribunal had powers inherent in it to keep the proceedings in correct and legal parlance---Application was bound to succeed and was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal with the payment of Rs.5000 as cost---Original appeal was restored for regular hearing which was to be fixed for hearing for a date under intimation to both the sides by issuance of separate hearing notices under registered post as per rules. AIR 1929 .Cal. 475; AIR 1961 Patna 299; AIR 1962 Punjab 82; PLD 1976 Kar. 268 and Allah Dita v. Aziz Din PLD 1981 Lah. 508 rel. PLD 1972 Lah. 603; 1990 CLC 1473; 1996 SCMR…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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