KHAN GAS (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZONE, RTO, PESHAWAR S

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

KHAN GAS (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZONE, RTO, PESHAWAR S.5---Condonation of delay---Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, not a right vested in the litigant---Such discretion must be exercised judiciously and within parameters recognized by law. S.133---Tax reference---Reference jurisdiction of the High Court---Duty of High Court to answer question of law---Scope---“Question of law”, meaning of---Question of law means a question as to what the law is on a particular point, which provision of law is applicable to a particular factual situation and what the true rule of law is on a certain matter---In reference jurisdiction, High Court cannot either strike down a provision of law or declare it ultra vires of the Constitution---While exercising reference jurisdiction, the High Court confines itself to the questions framed/proposed and gives an opinion in the perspective of the facts, and entering upon the constitutionality of a particular provision is not required in such matters---High Court, in exercise of its reference jurisdiction, does not reappraise evidence or substitute factual findings of the Tribunal unless a clear question of law arises---Concurrent findings of lower forums cannot be interfered with in reference jurisdiction unless demonstrated to be perverse. S.5---Condonation of delay---Decision on merits rather than technicalities, plea of---Relevance---Law of limitation---Significance---While courts are inclined towards deciding matters on merits rather than technicalities, this principle does not override statutory limitations unless compelling justification is shown; otherwise, limitation law would be rendered otiose and the principle of finality of adjudication defeated. Ss.131(4), 133 & 161(1)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5---Tax demand on alleged non-deduction of withholding tax---Appeal dismissed as time-barred by forty-five days---Refusal of condonation of delay---Unverified medical excuse as “sufficient cause”, plea of---Legality---Petitioner company challenged tax proceedings under Ss.161(1) & 205 for tax year 2019 whereby tax demand and additional tax were created on alleged failure to deduct withholding tax---The primary question before the High Court was whether the Tribunal rightly refused condonation and dismissed the appeal despite the petitioner's plea that the original order was without jurisdiction and passed without fair opportunity---Held: Relevant provisions of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and S.131(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 explicitly required the applicant to establish that there was “sufficient cause” preventing him from filing the appeal within prescribed time, the burden of proof lying upon the party seeking condonation---Mere negligence, inadvertence or unverified medical excuse cannot constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation---No question of law had arisen out of the impugned order---Present reference was answered in the negative, in circumstances.

KHAN GAS (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZONE, RTO, PESHAWAR S — 2026 PTD 938 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PTD