| Case ID |
1ba77b1d-10f3-48c0-b7a9-c5e4c2ce17b8 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1178 of 198 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 11, 1987 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court ruled on the application under Section 151, C.P.C. read with Article 199 (4-B) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioners sought an extension of stay for a further three months due to the non-disposal of the main petition within the stipulated six-month period. The Court held that the principle 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit' applies, meaning an act of the Court shall not prejudice any man. However, the Court determined that it cannot extend the mandatory six-month stay period as provided in Article 199 (4-A) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Article 199 (4-B) do not empower an extension beyond six months and reaffirmed the importance of adhering to the constitutional timeframe. Consequently, the application for extension was dismissed with no order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Sindh High Court Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1178 of 198, the court examined the intricate balance between constitutional provisions and the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, particularly focusing on Articles 199(4-A) and 199(4-B) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioners, Messrs Siddique Trust, challenged the notices issued by the Income Tax Officer under sections 56 and 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, asserting their non-liability for assessment as a Trust. The case underscored the principle that an act of the court should not adversely affect any party involved, encapsulated in the maxim 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit'. However, the court clarified that while it has the power to grant interim relief, it cannot contravene the explicit provisions of the law, which do not allow for the extension of stay orders beyond six months. The decision is pivotal in understanding the limitations of judicial powers in the context of tax law and constitutional mandates. Legal practitioners should note the implications of this ruling on future cases involving similar legal principles, particularly in terms of procedural timelines and the rights of petitioners in tax disputes. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
AJMAL MIAN,
S.A. RAHMAN
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Amin Butt,
Imam Ali Kazi,
Shaikh Hyder
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs SIDDIQUE TRUST
|
| Respondents |
another,
Income Tax OFFICER
|
| Citations |
1987 SLD 109,
1987 CLC 2366,
(1987) 56 TAX 120
|
| Other Citations |
Paul Williams and another v. Hatiz Nasir Ali P L D 1960 (W.P.) Kar. 174,
Mian Arshad Ali v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Rehabilitation, Islamabad and 13 others P L D 1975 Lah. 7,
Fazal Haq v. The State P L D 1982 Lah. 452,
Divisional Superintendent, P.W.R. Karachi v. Bashir Ahmed and others P L D 1973 S C 589,
Soshi Goomar Banerjee and another v. Mrs. D.J. Hill and others A I R (36) 1949 F C 135,
Ramchandiram Mirchandani v. India United Mills Ltd. and others AIR 1962 Bom. 92,
Har Charan Singh v. Shiv Rani and others A I R 1981 S C 1284,
Chaibasa Cement Works Jhinkpani v. Their Workmen A I R 1960 S C 56,
Hassan Mahmood and others v. Federal Land Commission and others 1985 C L C 2665,
Federation of Pakistan v. United Sugar Mills P L D 1977 S C 397,
Allah Wasaya and 6 others v. F.L.C. P L D 1979 S C 44
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1979,
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
56,
61,
199(4A),
199(4B),
199
|