COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs Messrs BAWANY SUGAR MILLS BADIN
This matter concerns the maintainability of an appeal filed under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, by the Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Hyderabad. The core legal question was whether an appeal signed by an Office Superintendent (Law) rather than the Collector personally, and subsequently ratified by the Collector after the limitation period had expired, was maintainable in law. The respondent argued that the appeal was filed by an unauthorized person. The Court, relying on the precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (2006 SCMR 129), held that an appeal under the relevant statutory provisions must be filed by the Collector personally. The Court further affirmed the principle that a defect in the signing of a memo of appeal cannot be cured by subsequent ratification if the limitation period for filing the appeal has already expired. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly.
- Is an appeal filed under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, maintainable if signed by an Office Superintendent instead of the Collector?
- Can a defect in the signing of a memo of appeal be cured by subsequent ratification after the limitation period has expired?
- Does the Supreme Court precedent in Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries mandate that only the Collector can file an appeal under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- Section 47, Sales Tax Act 1990
ORDER
1. ' Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appeal was filed by unauthorized person and consequently it is not maintainable.
2. A perusal of file shows that this appeal under section 47 of the Sale Tax Act, 1990 was filed on 10-5- 2004 in the name of Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Hyderabad but under the signature of one Mr. M.R.K. Warsi, Office Superintendent (Law).
3. ' The appellant subsequently realized that the appeal could be filed by Collector only and none else and, therefore, they submitted an application seeking permission to get the memo. Of appeal signed by the Collector vide order, dated 12-4-2005 the application was allowed subject to all just exceptions and without prejudice to the rights of the opposite party. Subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation v.
4. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (2006 SCM R 129) that the appeal could be filed by the Collector only and none else. It has been further held that even if the memo. Of appeal is signed subsequently by the Collector after expiry of limitation period, the appeal would still be not maintainable in law.
5. ' Respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited above, it is held that the appeal is not maintainable and consequently the appeal stands dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- Collector Customs, Peshawar vs Syed Aftab-ul-Hassan 2024 PHC 304
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR Versus Syed AFTAB-UL-HASSAN 2025 PTD 1078
- ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, LAHORE vs FLYING BOARD AND PAPER PRODUCTS, LAHORE 2017 PTD (Trib.) 1536
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS vs Haji SAEED AHMED and 2 others 2015 PTD (Trib.) 1400
- COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR vs IFTIKHAR. ALI KHAN 2010 PTD 2136
- 2010 PTD 1886 2010 PTD 1886