COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE VS SERVICE INDUSTRIES LTD, 2005 PTD-SUPREME-COURT 2420 (2005)

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---

----S.47---Appeal to High Court---Delay of six days---Receipt of notice of impugned order by appellant on next day of its passing---Non-filing of appeal within time due to lapse, for which appellant's office was responsible---Appellant could reap premium of such lapse---High Court dismissed appeal being time-barred.

Ahmad Bilal Sufi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Atta-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17^th May, 2005.

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. Leave refused.

S.A.K./C-39/SLeave refused.