MR. JUSTICE IRFAN SAADAT KHAN.--(1). Petitioner has sought review of the order dated 11-3-2008.
Petitioner has also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of review application as the review application was filed much beyond the limitation period i.e. On 7-10-2008.
2. The only ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the applications is that the petitioner was not served with the notice fixing the date of hearing on 11-3-2008. He has relied upon the case of Mst. Nigar Bibi v. Salahuddin Khan and others PLD 1990 SC 76. As against this Mr. Raja Muhammad counsel for the respondent has contended that no review can be filed as under the Customs Act no power of review is conferred upon the High Court to review its own order passed as an appellate forum exercising jurisdiction of Customs Act. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the case of Collector of Sales Tax East, Karachi v. Custom, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 2003 PTD 1477.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the leamed counsel. Though the petitioner has urged that it has not received notice of hearing of 11-3-2008 but the Court record shows that such a notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner counsel Mr. Shahzad Mazhar, Advocate on 25-2- 2008 which contains outward number 120 dated 26-2-2008. The notice was issued mentioning the same address which the petitioner-counsel has given in his Vakalatnama and notice was also issued to the petitioner's counsel on the address previous to this date which appears to have been received by him as no complaint in this regard is made. It is stated in the review application that petitioner counsel's office address was a changed from Suite No. 228, 2nd Floor, Sadiq Plaza, The Mall, Lahore to Suite No. 34 2nd Floor, Saddiq Plaza, The Mall, Lahore and perhaps for this reason the notice may have misplaced. The affidavit of the petitioner's counsel has not been filed to substantiate the fact that the petitioner counsel has changed his address. Even the fact about receipt and non-receipt of the notice which was addressed to the petitioner counsel could have been validly commented upon by the counsel only and for this reason the filing of his affidavit was necessary which, however, the petitioner has not done. Apparently, neither there is any valid ground for review of the order nor for condonation of delay. Be that as it may, in terms of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Collector of Sales Tax East Karachi relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, we find that the review application which was filed in the High Court in a sales tax proceeding was held to be not maintainable as the Sales Tax Act did not make provision giving jurisdiction to the High Court to review its own order. Similar seems to be the position in respect to the Customs Act as the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that there is any provision under which the High Court can review its own order exercising the jurisdiction under the Customs Act.
4. Consequently, we find no merit in these applications which are also not maintainable and the same are therefore, dismissed.