COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD VS BAWANY SUGAR MILLS BADIN, 2008 PTD-KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH 356 (2006)

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---

----S.47---Appeal to High Court---Maintainability---Appeal, in present case, was filed in the name of Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, but under the signature of Office Superintendent (Law)---Subsequently when appellant realized that appeal could be filed by Collector only and none else, an application seeking permission to get the memo of appeal signed by the Collector, was submitted which was allowed with all just exceptions and without prejudice to the rights of the opposite party---Validity---Appeal could be filed by the Collector only and none else and that even if the memo of appeal was signed subsequently by the Collector after expiry of limitation period, appeal would still be not maintainable in law---Appeal filed by appellant was dismissed being not maintainable.

2006 SCMR 129 rel

Muhammad Salim Thepdawala for Respondent.

ORDER

Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appeal was filed by unauthorized person and consequently it is not maintainable.

A perusal of file shows that this appeal under section 47 of the Sale Tax Act, 1990 was filed on 10-5-2004 in the name of Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Hyderabad but under the signature of one Mr. M.R.K. Warsi, Office Superintendent (Law).

The appellant subsequently realized that the appeal could be filed by Collector only and none else and, therefore, they submitted an application seeking permission to get the memo. of appeal signed by the Collector vide order, dated 12-4-2005 the application was allowed subject to all just exceptions and without prejudice to the rights of the opposite party. Subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (2006 SCMR 129) that the appeal could be filed by the Collector only and none else. It has been further held that even if the memo. of appeal is signed subsequently by the Collector after expiry of limitation period, the appeal would still be not maintainable in law.

Respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited above, it is held that the appeal is not maintainable and consequently the appeal stands dismissed.

H.B.T./C-20/KAppeal dismissed.