COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE vs SERVICE INDUSTRIES LTD.
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court warranted condonation under the circumstances presented by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that they only became aware of the appellate tribunal's order upon receiving a letter from the respondent in July 1998, despite admitting that their office had received a copy of the order on May 29, 1998. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's explanation for the delay was insufficient and unjustified, as the petitioner's office had actual notice of the impugned order on May 29, 1998. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, ruling that the petitioner could not benefit from their own administrative negligence or lapse. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot seek condonation of delay based on an alleged lack of knowledge when they had actual notice of the order, and administrative negligence within a public office does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
- Does the receipt of an appellate order by a petitioner's office constitute notice for the purpose of calculating limitation periods?
- Can a party seek condonation of delay based on administrative negligence within their own office?
- Is an appeal filed after the statutory limitation period, without sufficient cause for delay, liable to be dismissed?
ORDER
1. Subsequent to the rejection of petitioner's appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 28-5-1998, copy of the order whereof was admittedly received by the petitioner's office on the next day i.e. 29th May, 1998 vide Diary No.1914; admittedly the second appeal before the High Court was preferred with a delay of six days whereupon the learned Division Bench dismissed the same vide the impugned order, dated 7th February, 2001 being barred by time. Against which captioned petition for leave to appeal has been re-coursed placing reliance on (C.M. No.2 of 1998) having been filed before the Lahore High Court tending to seek condonation of the delay revealing the following:-- "(3) That the petitioner came to know about the impugned order of the learned Tribunal when he received letter, dated 25-7-1998 of the respondent. The matter was put up before the A.C., Sales Tax
(Law) on 1-8-1998, certified copies of the impugned order and other documents were obtained on 5-8-1998 and these papers were handed over to the Legal Advisor on 6-8-1998 for filing an appeal before this Honourable Court.
(4) That non-filing of the appeal in this Honourable Court is not wilful. Huge public revenue as well as a question of law of public importance is involved in the case."
2. Which we are afraid hardly justified the sought for condonation because admittedly the petitioner's office had acquired notice of the appellate order on 29-5-1998. Consequently the impugned order is unexceptionable, for which lapse solely the petitioner's office is responsible thus cannot reap premium thereof. Resultantly the petition being devoid of any substance fails and is hereby dismissed. .