COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE vs S. MUHAMMAD DIN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order passed by the Lahore High Court. The petition was filed with a significant delay of 954 days. The petitioner sought to exclude the time spent pursuing an application for a certificate of fitness to appeal, which had been filed under the Income Tax Act and subsequently refused. The core legal question was whether the period spent prosecuting an incompetent application for a certificate of fitness could be excluded from the period of limitation for filing the petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the application for the certificate was incompetent and the petitioner did not challenge the correctness of that determination, the time spent pursuing it could not be excluded for the purposes of limitation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred. The judgment affirms that time spent pursuing an incompetent legal remedy cannot be excluded when calculating the limitation period for an appeal.
- Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent application for a certificate of fitness be excluded from the limitation period for filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal filed with a delay of 954 days maintainable if the delay is attributed to an incompetent application for a certificate of fitness?
- Section 66-A, Income Tax Act 1922
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The office note shows that this petition is barred by 954 days.
2. In this case, the petition for leave to appeal was filed on 28-7-1976 against the order passed by the Lahore High Court dated 11-5-1973.
3. Sh. Abdul Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had applied under section 66-A of the Income Tax Act for the grant of a certificate of fitness to file an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was refused on 27-5-1976 and the petition is In the as from the date.
4. According to the learned counsel, the the spent in pursuing the application for grant of a certificate should be excluded. We, however, find that the certificate was refused on the ground that an application, therefore, was not competent and that the petitioner has not challenged the correctness of the said determination. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the the spent in prosecuting the application for grant of, a certificate cannot be excluded.
5. This petition, therefore, must fail on the ground of limitation. It is dismissed accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAHID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 478