MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J,-1. Messrs Climax Engineering Co. Limited, Gujranwala, carry on the business of manufacture of taxable electric goods, such as, fans and fuse units and non-taxable items such as, transformers and electric motors. The Sales Tax returns of the company were accepted as correct by the Sales Tax Officer and the Sales Tax charged by the Excise Authorities was accepted as correct.
2. The assessee filed an appeal as it alleged that it was for the Sales Tax Officer to have determined the tax payable and claimed that more tax, had been charged from it than was due and it was entitled to refund on that account. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the appeal and directed the Sales Tax Officer to allow the.-refund.
3. The Sales Tax Officer, Investigation Circle V, Lahore, filed an appeal against this order. A preliminary objection was taken before the Tribunal by the assessee that the appeal was barred by time as it was filed in the shape of a duly complete memorandum on 18th of May, 1964, when the period allowed by law had already expired.
4. The Department took the stand that the appeal had in fact been presented on the 28th of March 1964, it was returned on the 14th of May, 1964, by the Registrar with the observation that it was not complete since he did not bear the signatures of the appellant nor had it been verified. This was resubmitted after compliance within a period of three days, hence it was claimed that the period of limitation had not expired.
5. The submissions made by the Departmental Representative failed to find favour with the Tribunal wherefore it dismissed the appeal in limine.
6. The Commissioner of Sales Tax applied for reference of the following question to this Court:-- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing in limine the appeal based on the Memorandum filed on 28-3-1964 and 18-3-1964?"
7. The Tribunal found that a question of law had arisen and consequently referred the same in the following form to this Court:-- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal?"
8. The only question that arises is as to whether the Memorandum which had been presented admittedly within the period of limitation could be dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time simply because it did not at that time bear the signatures and verification.
9. There is a long string of rulings under the Code of Civil Procedure in the similar circumstances where the Memorandum of appeal is always deemed to have been filed on the day when it was presented even if it did not bear the signatures and verification, provided the same were duly made later on with the permission of the Court. Relying on a number of them, it was held in Sajawal Khan v. Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha [PLD 1968 Lah. 527] that:-- "Even in the case of Order VI, rules 14 and 15.C.P.C, there is ample authority for the view that signing and verification of plaints are mere matters of procedure and even if a plaint is not properly- signed and verified, but it was admitted and entered in the register of suits, it does not cease to be plaint: and the suit cannot be said not to have been instituted, because of the defect or irregularity in the matter of signing and verification of the plaint".
The principles applicable to an appeal under this Act cannot be different so far as this particular purpose is concerned.
10. Be that as it may, Section 33(2-A) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within the period. In the present case, the Memorandum of appeal was presented within a few days of the case having been decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was not returned till the 14th of May, 1964 although it had been filed on the 28th of March 1964. When it was so returned it was represented after signatures and verification within four days. This was in any case, a sufficient circumstance for condoning the delay, if any.
11. Our answer to the question posed consequently is in' the negative. The case shall go back to the Tribunal for being disposed of in accordance with the law.