Collector of Customs, MCC (E&C) Customs House, Peshawar and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged three concurrent decisions, including an order of the High Court in a Customs Reference, which had upheld the Customs Appellate Tribunal's decision, which in turn affirmed an order-in-original by the Additional Collector of Customs. The petition was filed with an 11-day delay. The petitioners sought condonation of delay, citing administrative formalities and the need for internal approval from superiors as the reason for the late filing. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners had jeopardized a revenue claim of 2.8 million rupees merely to avoid paying a court fee of 250 rupees, and confirmed that no action had been taken against the officials responsible for the delay. The Court held that legal proceedings must be initiated within the prescribed statutory period and that delay cannot be condoned without a valid, sufficient reason. Finding the explanation for the delay inadequate, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal be condoned on the ground of awaiting internal administrative approval?
- Is the lack of a valid reason for delay sufficient grounds to dismiss an application for condonation of delay?
- Does the failure to file a petition within the prescribed period warrant the dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
Qazi Faez Isa, J. This petition for leave to appeal assails the order dated 6 September 2022 passed in Customs Reference No. 21-P/2022, which had upheld the order dated 25 January 2022 passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench, which had in turn upheld the order-in-original dated 13 August 2021 passed by the Additional Collector, Collectorate of Customs (Adjudication)
Islamabad, Camp Office Peshawar. Therefore, three concurrent decisions have been assailed herein.
2. The petition has been belatedly filed with a delay of 11 days. Through C.M.A No. 10322/2022 the said delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that formalities needed to be fulfilled and 'permission of high-ups for filing the petition' was sought, which was awaited.
3. We enquired from the learned counsel about the amount of revenue involved and were told that it was 2.8 million rupees, whereas on the petition court-fee of 250 rupees was payable. We next enquired whether the person responsible for the belated filing was proceeded against and were informed that this was not done.
4. Surprisingly, the petitioners elected to jeopardise a claim of 2.8 million rupees merely to save court-fee of 250 rupees. If it was subsequently decided against the filing of the petition it could have been withdrawn. The petitioners lost sight of the larger goal by jeopardising 2.8 million rupees to save 250 rupees.
5. If decisions are assailed they should be done within the prescribed period, and it should not be assumed that delay would be A condoned when there is no valid reason to condone the same, as in the instant case. Therefore, the said application is dismissed and, consequently, the petition for leave to appeal is also dismissed.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue.