' The appellant company filed appeals along with application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal on 19-10-2012 against the Order-in-Original dated 15-5-2012 passed by the learned CIR, Multan under section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. It is pertinent to mention here that since the earlier application filed for condonation of delay was not traceable, second application was preferred on 27-2-2013. It is further clarified that now the earlier application is also traced and since the purpose and intent of both the applications is to make request to condone the delay occurred in filing appeal before the Tribunal, this is treated as a single application which after hearing the parties are disposed of accordingly.
2. As per section 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 an appeal against the order under section 11 was to be filed within 60 days of the receipt of the impugned order which was served on the appellant in the instant case on 20-5-2012. The taxpayer has failed to file the appeal within the statutory period of 60 days, hence the instant miscellaneous application for condonation of delay is moved.
3. The learned A.R during the course of proceedings reiterated the same reasons for delay which have been given in the application for the condonation of delay; the main contention being that the appeal was filed before the CIR(A) under section 45B of the Act as per their own interpretation of provisions of law as well as the advice given on 10-7-2012 by the CIR(A) in the impugned Order dated 10-7-2012. The exact words of the appellant's contention as incorporated in the miscellaneous application are reproduced as below:- ''That in view of the circumstances explained above, since delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal was not only due to the applicant's interpretation of provisions of law but such position was also supported by the corroborating statement of the CIR in order-in-original, it is prayed that the delay in filing of appeal against the order-in-original is condoned under the provisions of Rules 16(3) of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Rules, 2010 "
4. We have given due consideration to the facts of the case together with the written as well as oral submissions of the learned A.R and the D.R. The order-in-original was served on 20-5-2012 and the appeal before this Tribunal was to be filed up to 19th July, 2012 i,e, within 60 days of the receipt of the said order. However, the appellant instead of preferring appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period as warranted under law, filed appeal before the learned CIR(A) on 13-6-2012.
During hearing on 10-7-2012 the first appellate authority clarified that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in the following words:-- "Call notice was issued and in response thereto, Mr. Qasim Alvi CA/AR appeared on 10-7-2012. The case was discussed with him. He was apprised of the fact that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue. The appellant company was obliged to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, as provided under section 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990."
' It is thus evident from the above that:-
(i) The appellant filed appeal before the CIR(A) on the basis of their own interpretation of law;
(ii) The appellant did not file appeal before this Tribunal even pointing out by the CIR(A) on 10-7- 2012 that it had approached the wrong forum; and that jurisdiction of filing appeal against the order passed by the CIR vested with the Tribunal; and
(iii) The appellant filed appeal in the Tribunal on 19-10-2012 even after service of the orders of the CIR(A) on 2-10-2012 when still there was ample time for the appellant to file the appeal in time before the Tribunal.
' Keeping in view the facts narrated above the contentions of the learned A.R are not tenable. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as 2002 SCM R 1004 has held that fault in approaching wrong forum for redressal of grievance would not at all be a reasonable cause to condone the delay. We do not find any force in the argument that the filing of appeal before CIR(A) on the basis of their self-styled interpretation of law is a sufficient cause to condone the delay.
5. Even otherwise, when the appellant was apprised by the learned CIR(A) of the correct position on 10-7-2012 and there was still time to file appeal up to 19-7-2012 he should have immediately preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The inaction on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal up to 18-10-2012 has no justifiable cause for condoning the delay whatsoever and explanation tendered in this regard is not tenable. It is settled principle of law that delay of each and every day should be explained with sufficient cause which, unfortunately in the instant case, is not available.
Under these circumstances judgment of the Honourable Lahore High Court relied upon by the learned AR cited as 2002 PTD 1035 is irrelevant and not applicable on all fours. As such we are of the considered opinion that after pointing out by the learned CIR(A) on 10-7-2012 the appellant should have immediately filed appeal before this Tribunal to prove his inadvertency. Having not done so there is no D sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Under the circumstances, we do not find any reasonable excuse for delay in filing of appeal before this forum. The application for condonation of appeal is, therefore, rejected.
Application rejected.