Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 1329 of 1963‑64, decided on 27th July 1965 District Montgomery.

S. 16‑Second Revision‑Limitation‑Ninety days from order of Commissioner though no period of limitation prescribed‑Practice established by consistent rulings of Financial Commissioners and Board of Revenue‑Second Revision filed beyond ninety days after allowing for time spent in obtaining copies rejected as time‑barred P L D 1964 S C 97, held, not in reference to Revenue Act which is a special Act‑Considerations made in respect of general law not applicable to special law.

Sh. Abdur Rashid for Petitioner.

Syed Asad Ali Rizvi for Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5.

Respondent No. 2 : Ex parte.

This is a second revision filed, against an order dated the 3rd of December 1963, passed by Additional Commissioner, Multan, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

The order was passed by the Commissioner on the 3rd of December, 1963. The petitioner applied for copies on 12‑12‑1963 and got them on 2‑1‑1964. Excluding the period spent in obtain ing copies, the present revision is time‑barred because it was filed after the expiry of 90 days. It is true that the law does not lay down any period of limitation but there have been consistent rulings of the Financial Commissioners as well as the Board of Revenue that the Board of Revenue will not interfere if a revision is filed more than 90 days after the date of the order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to. P L D 1964 S C 97. This ruling is not with reference to the Revenue Act which is a special law. Considerations made in respect of general law cannot, therefore, be applicable to it.

In these circumstances, I reject the revision as time‑barred.

A.H. Petition rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.