COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE vs SERVICE INDUSTRIES LTD.
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Collector of Sales Tax against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had 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 relevant limitation laws. The petitioner argued that the delay was not willful and involved significant public revenue. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's office had admittedly received notice of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on 29 May 1998, yet failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period. The Court found the petitioner's explanation for the delay insufficient and rejected the plea for condonation, noting that the petitioner could not benefit from its own administrative negligence. The ratio established is that administrative delay or lack of diligence within a government department does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing an appeal, and parties cannot reap a premium from their own lapses in procedural compliance.
- Does administrative negligence or delay within a government department constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Can a party seek the benefit of condonation of delay when the delay is attributable to its own failure to act upon receiving notice of an order?
ORDER
' 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."
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. .