' AJMAL MIAN, J.--By this common order, we intend to dispose of above Misc. Application filed in the above 10 petitions. The prayer of the respondent is to allow the Income Tax Officer to proceed with the matter as the assessm ent will become timebarred on 30th June, 1988.
2. The facts in C.P. No,D-750/87 are different from the facts of the other above 10 petition. In the former according to the averments of the petitions, the assessment order was finalized and a refund voucher for a sum of Rs,1,94,318 was issued and thereafter a notice under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) was issued to nullify the above refund vouchers, whereas in the other 10 petitions as per averments in the petitions, the points raised in the notices under Section 65 of the Ordinance were the subject-matters of the Tribunal and the departmen own orders for over ten years and thereafter the above notices were issued under Section 65 of the Ordinance to undo the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
3. However, the case of the department is that the notices have been issued in accordance with the law and there has been escape of assessment.
4. Be that as it may, in support of the application Mr.Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently urged that in view of the clear language employed in clause (4-A) of Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973, no stay order can operate for more than six months. He, therefore, has submitted that the respondent may be allowed to finalize the assessment and to implement the assessm ent order. In support of the above contention he has relied upon the case of M/s. Saddiqi Trust v. Income Tax Officer and others 1987 CLC 2366 (Karachi), in which a Division Bench of this Court declined an application filed by the petitioner under sub-clause 4(b) for the extention of the period of stay on the ground that the petition was not disposed of on account of heavy load of work pending in the High Court. Mr.Shaikh Haider has also referred to the case of Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad etc. v.
United Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi PLD 1977 SC 397. Whereas Mr.Ali Athar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to a unreported order dated 2-5-1988 passed by this Court in C.P. No,D- 372/87 in which respondents were allowed to pass an order of assessment with the condition that the same will not he implemented till the disposal of the aforesaid petition. In the instant case no assessm ent order has yet been passed. Only notice under Section 65 of the Ordinance has been issued.
5. In our view, the cases relied upon by Mr.Shaikh Haider are not applicable to the instant case. We are inclined to hold that it will he just and proper to follow the above unreported order dated 2-5- 1988 with certain modification. We, therefore, allow the respondent to pass the assessment orders with the condition that the same will not be implemented till the expiry of six months from the date of orders or earlier if the petitions are disposed of. The above petitions may be fixed for regular hearing on the re-opening of the Court after summer vacation.