The Commissioner Of Sales Tax Lahore Zone, Lahore. vs M/S. S. Muhammad
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax Lahore Zone, Lahore, against an order of the Lahore High Court dated 11-5-1973. The petition was filed on 28-7-1976, resulting in a delay of 954 days. The core legal question addressed is whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent application for a certificate of fitness under Section 66-A of the Income Tax Act can be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Court held that since the certificate application was refused on the ground of incompetence and that determination was not challenged, the time spent thereon cannot be excluded, rendering the petition hopelessly time-barred. The petition was accordingly dismissed on the ground of limitation, establishing that time spent on incompetent proceedings cannot be excluded for limitation purposes.
- Can the time spent in prosecuting an incompetent application for a certificate of fitness be excluded for limitation purposes?
- What is the effect of failing to challenge the determination that an application for a certificate of fitness is not competent?
- Section 66-A, Income Tax Act
ORDER
NASIM HASSAN SHAH, 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 time as from the date.
According to the learned counsel, the time 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 therefor 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 time spent in prosecuting the application for grant of a certificate cannot be excluded.
4. This petition, therefore, must fail on the ground of limitation. It is dismissed accordingly.