LIBERTY CAR PARKING (PVT.) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (EX-COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX), LAHORE O — 2021 SCMR 375 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation: 2021 SCMR 375 SUPREME-COURT
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year: 2021
Reporter: SCMR
Parties: LIBERTY CAR PARKING (PVT.) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (EX-COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX), LAHORE O
Subject matter: Civil
Provisions referred to: S. 2; Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963); Wealth Tax Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

LIBERTY CAR PARKING (PVT.) LTD. VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (EX-COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX), LAHORE O. VI, R.14 & O. XXIX, R. 1---Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), S. 2(18)---Wealth Tax Appeals filed by a company without a resolution from the Board of Directors, but duly signed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)---Sufficient compliance---Ratification of appeals---Scope---Company was a juristic entity and it could duly authorize any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---Person may be expressly authorized either by the Board of Directors or by a power of attorney---However, in absence thereof and in cases where pleadings had been signed by one of its officers, the same could be accredited by the company by express or implied action---In the present case, the appeals filed before the High Court were not authorized by Board of Directors by proper resolution but they were duly signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner-company---Definition of 'principal officer' provided in S. 2(18) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 clearly showed that the Chief Executive Officer was the principal officer and if he had signed the appeals before the High Court, the same would be accorded as express ratification by the company---In such circumstances the High Court ought to have decided the appeals on merits and not on technical grounds---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed, and the case was remanded back to the High Court to decide the appeals filed by the petitioner-company afresh in accordance with law.

Other judgments reported in 2021 SCMR

2021 SCMR 557 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD DANIYAL FARRUKH ANSARI VS State S. 497---prevention of electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 11, 20, 21 & 22---Penal Code (XLV of…
2021 SCMR 1016 SUPREME-COURTAHMAD KHALID BUTT VS State S. 497---prevention of electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 20, 21 & 24---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 34 & 1…
2021 SCMR 1358 SUPREME-COURTFAYYAZ HUSSAIN VS EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (EDUCATION), CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT RAWALPINDI Ss. 4(1)(b) & 5(1)(a)---Willful absence from d…
2021 SCMR 702 SUPREME-COURTREGIONAL OPERATION CHIEF, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE, SARGODHA VS Mst. NUSRAT PERVEEN Pt. II, Cha…
2021 SCMR 645 SUPREME-COURTABID HUSSAIN VS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Order which was vague, without jurisdiction or illegal---To challenge…
2021 SCMR 645 SUPREME-COURTABID HUSSAIN VS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ordinary meaning of a provision---Scope---Any provision of law had to…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English