JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.- Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an appeal filed by him against the adjudication made by respondent No. 2 is pending before the learned Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has fixed the appeal for hearing on numerous dates, but the matter has been left over. An interim order has been passed by the leamed Tribunal staying recovery. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 46 the said order will lapse on the efflux of six months, In these circumstances, he contends this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can pass an interim order staying recovery of the disputed amount of sales tax. This contention requires consideration. Notice for 6.2.2002.
For the Appellant: Dr. Sh. Maqsood Ahmad Qadri, Advocate.
For the Respondent: A. Karim Malik, Advocate with Abdu) Majid Hangra, Inspector Law, Sales Tax.
Date of hearing: 6th February, 2002.
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.- Learned counsel for the respondent Department seeks some time.
2. Relist on 13.2.2002.
Until the next date of hearing the premises of the petitioner shall not be sealed.
For the Appellant: Dr. Sh. Maqsood Ahmad Qadri, Advocate.
Date of hearing: 13th February, 2002.
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.-- There is a written request for an adjournment on behalf of Mr. A. Karim Malik, Advocate, who is busy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Islamabad today. Allowed.
Interim relief already granted shall continue until the next date of hearing.
2. Relist on 19.3.2002.
For the Petitioner: Dr. Sh. Maqsood Ahmad Qadri, Advocate.
For the Respondent: A. Karim Malik, Advocate.
Date of hearing: 19th March, 2002.
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.- The petitioner feeling aggrieved of an order in original requiring it to make payment of a sum of Rs.11,64;514/- as sales tax alongwith additional tax and penalty of Rs. 15,000/-, has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal vide order, dated 24.4.2001 granted interim relief to the petitioner by ordering stay of the recovery of the aforesaid amount. However, after the lapse of six months from the date of the aforesaid order the said order is no longer effective because of the provisions contained in Section 46(4) of the Sales Tax Act.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even though the petitioner's appeal is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal and despite the fact the said Tribunal considered it fit to stay the recovery of the aforesaid amounts, the Appellate Tribunal is not in a position to extend the interim order because of the express provisions of Section 46(4) referred to above.
3. It is, in the above circumstances, contended by learned counsel that an order directing the stay of the above-referred amounts, can be passed by the High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction because of the circumstances narrated above which show that the remedy before the learned Appellate Tribunal is no longer available to the petitioner as far as interim relief is concerned.
4. The aforesaid contention appears to be well- founded. This petition is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the amounts impugned by the petitioner, in its appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal, shall not be recovered from the petitioner during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal.
This order, however, shall be subject to the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution.