Executive Summary & Statutory Authority
| Step / Appellate Stage | Governing Section | Forum / Adjudicating Authority | Statutory Pre-deposit & Fees | Limitation Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Appeal | Section 283 & 284, Income Tax Act 2023 | Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) / Appellate Joint Commissioner | 10% of disputed tax payable; BDT 200 statutory fee | Within 60 days of receipt of assessment/demand order |
| Second Appeal | Section 291 & 292, Income Tax Act 2023 | Taxes Appellate Tribunal (TAT) | 10% of disputed tax affirmed by first appellate authority; BDT 1,000 fee | Within 60 days of communication of first appellate order |
| Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) | Sections 315–321, Income Tax Act 2023 | Facilitator / Commissioner of Taxes / Board | No additional fee; taxpayer must withdraw pending appeal | Within 30 days from dispute origination or pending appeal stage |
| Reference to High Court | Section 308 & 309, Income Tax Act 2023 | High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh | 15% of disputed tax balance; prescribed High Court process fees | Within 90 days from the date of communication of Tribunal order |
| Appeal to Appellate Division | Section 314, Income Tax Act 2023 & Art. 103 of Constitution | Appellate Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh | Prescribed Supreme Court security deposit & filing fees | Within 30 to 90 days per Supreme Court Rules 1988 |
Featured Snippet: A tax appeal in Bangladesh is a three-tier statutory remedy under the Income Tax Act, 2023 (Chapters XIX–XX): first to the Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) under Section 284, second to the Taxes Appellate Tribunal under Section 288, and finally by reference on a question of law to the High Court Division under Section 306, each requiring mandatory 10% pre-deposits and strict limitation compliance.
The Income Tax Act, 2023 (Ayn No. 12 of 2023) — hereinafter "ITA 2023" — repealed and replaced the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. XXXVI of 1984), consolidating the entire hierarchy of direct tax dispute resolution into Chapter XIX (Sections 284–305, Appeals and Alternative Dispute Resolution) and Chapter XX (Sections 306–323, Reference and Ancillary Provisions). This treatise is the definitive statutory architecture for practitioners, corporate counsel, and Chartered Accountants navigating assessment disputes from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (DCT) level through to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
Every appeal within this framework is fundamentally a creature of statute — there is no inherent common law right of appeal against a tax assessment. Consequently, strict compliance with the pre-deposit conditions under Section 286 (first appeal) and Section 289(2) (Tribunal appeal), together with rigorous adherence to the 60-day and 90-day limitation windows, is not a mere procedural nicety but a jurisdictional precondition. The Bangladesh judiciary, most authoritatively in BSRM Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes (2018) 70 DLR (HCD) 381, has repeatedly confirmed that non-compliance renders an appeal non-est — legally non-existent — regardless of the underlying merits of the taxpayer's grievance.
This treatise proceeds through the complete appellate lifecycle: statutory eligibility, computation of mandatory deposits, drafting protocols, limitation jurisprudence, Tribunal practice, High Court reference jurisdiction, and ultimately the residual constitutional remedies available under Articles 102 and 103 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
1. The First Administrative Appeal: Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) under Section 284
1.1 Scope of Appealable Orders
Section 284 of the ITA 2023 delineates the universe of orders against which a first appeal lies to the Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals). These include:
- Original or re-assessment orders passed by the DCT under the general assessment provisions and under Section 212 (re-assessment/reopening of assessment on discovery of escaped income);
- Orders imposing interest under the interest-charging provisions of Chapter IX;
- Orders imposing penalty under Chapter XXIII (concealment penalties, penalties for non-compliance with statutory notices, penalties for default in filing returns);
- Orders refusing or curtailing a refund claim under Chapter XVIII.
Notably, purely administrative or procedural directives — such as an intimation seeking clarificatory information, or a transfer of jurisdiction between tax circles — do not constitute "orders" appealable under Section 284, since they do not determine substantive tax liability. Counsel must carefully distinguish between an appealable "order" (which affects the quantum of tax, interest, or penalty) and a non-appealable administrative communication, since misclassification wastes the limited limitation window.
1.2 The Mandatory 10% Statutory Pre-Deposit
Section 286 imposes an absolute condition precedent: no appeal lies before the Commissioner (Appeals) unless the assessee has deposited 10% of the difference between the tax assessed by the DCT and the tax admitted by the assessee in the return filed under Section 173 or Section 180. Where no return was submitted at all, the deposit is calculated as 10% of the entire tax assessed.
The formula is expressed as:
$$\\ ext{Pre-Deposit} = 10\\\\% \\ imes (\\ ext{Assessed Tax} - \\ ext{Admitted Tax per Return})$$
This deposit must be remitted through the Automated Challan (A-Challan) system integrated with iBAS++ (Integrated Budget and Accounting System), crediting the designated NBR revenue head. Critically, the deposit must clear — not merely be tendered — before the appeal is filed; a post-dated cheque, a dishonoured instrument, or a pending bank transfer does not satisfy Section 286. This principle was definitively settled in BSRM Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes (2018) 70 DLR (HCD) 381, where the High Court Division held that the appellate authority possesses no discretion whatsoever to waive, reduce, or conditionally suspend the pre-deposit requirement absent an explicit statutory exemption. The Court characterized the deposit as jurisdictional rather than merely procedural — its absence deprives the Commissioner (Appeals) of the very authority to entertain the appeal.
A recurring compliance error is calculating the 10% solely on the disputed "taxable income" figure rather than on the actual tax differential inclusive of surcharge and applicable minimum tax under the Minimum Tax provisions. Practitioners must reconcile the Notice of Demand under Section 214 with the return-disclosed admitted tax liability line-by-line before generating the A-Challan.
1.3 Limitation: The 60-Day Window and Condonation Jurisprudence
Section 285 prescribes a 60-day limitation period, running from the date of service of the Notice of Demand (issued under Section 214) upon the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) retains statutory discretion to condone delay upon demonstration of "sufficient cause," mirroring Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
The precise commencement date of the limitation clock has generated substantial litigation. In Syed A.B.M. Pk. v. Commissioner of Taxes (1999) 51 DLR (HCD) 124, the High Court Division held that the 60-day period does not begin to run until the assessee is actually served with both the formal Notice of Demand and, where a certified copy of the assessment order was separately requested, until that certified copy is furnished. The time consumed by the tax office between the assessee's application for a certified copy and its actual delivery must be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908. This ruling is a vital shield against arbitrary limitation-based rejections by field-level Commissioners (Appeals), and practitioners should always preserve the copy-application receipt and the delivery acknowledgment as documentary proof of the exclusion period.
Where the appeal is filed beyond 60 days (net of permissible exclusions), a formal condonation petition supported by a sworn affidavit — detailing each day of delay with corroborating evidence such as medical certificates, natural disaster notifications, or documented systemic/operational failures — must accompany the memorandum of appeal.
1.4 Drafting the Memorandum of Appeal
The memorandum must conform to the prescribed statutory form under the Income Tax Rules, 2023, and must contain:
- Identification particulars — TIN, Tax Circle, Taxes Zone, and the precise assessment year under dispute;
- Statement of Facts — a chronological, non-argumentative narrative of the assessment proceedings, including notices issued under Section 212 or Section 183, disclosures made in the return, and the specific additions or disallowances made by the DCT;
- Grounds of Appeal — separately numbered, concise points of law and fact without extended argument (e.g., "The learned DCT erred in law in disallowing administrative expenses under Section 55 without affording an opportunity of hearing," or "The gross profit rate adopted by the DCT is arbitrary and unsupported by comparable market data");
- Verification — signed and dated by the principal officer (for corporate assessees) or the individual assessee personally.
1.5 Hearing, Disposal Powers, and the Limits on Remand
Under Section 287, the Commissioner (Appeals) may confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment, or set aside the order with specific directions for fresh adjudication by the DCT. However, the power of remand is not unlimited. In Abdul Monem Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes (2009) 14 BLC (HCD) 762, the High Court Division held that an appellate authority cannot repeatedly remand an assessment merely to give the DCT successive opportunities to cure foundational procedural defects or gather missing evidence that should have been collected at the original assessment stage. Remand is characterized as an "extraordinary power" requiring precise, substantive directions — not a mechanism for perpetuating indefinite litigation cycles. Counsel facing a weak remand order should press for outright annulment rather than acquiescing to open-ended reassessment.
Separately, Rangs Ltd. v. Taxes Appellate Tribunal (2004) 56 DLR (HCD) 512 establishes that arbitrary "best judgment" estimations of turnover or wholesale rejection of documented expenditure — without reference to comparable market parameters — violate natural justice, and appellate authorities confirming such additions must issue a reasoned, speaking order.
2. Second Appeal: The Taxes Appellate Tribunal (Sections 288–292)
2.1 Institutional Character and Bench Composition
Section 288 establishes the Taxes Appellate Tribunal as the final fact-finding forum in the direct tax hierarchy. Tribunal benches are typically constituted as Divisional Benches comprising a Judicial Member (drawn from the judicial service, addressing questions of law and procedural fairness) and an Accountant Member (drawn from the tax administration cadre, addressing technical accounting and valuation questions). Certain matters below prescribed monetary thresholds may be heard by a Single Bench.
2.2 The Second-Stage 10% Pre-Deposit and Filing Fee
Section 289(2) imposes an additional mandatory pre-deposit: 10% of the tax liability as determined or upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). This is cumulative with (not a substitute for) the first-tier 10% deposit paid under Section 286. Alongside this deposit, a statutory filing fee of BDT 1,000 must be paid via Treasury Challan.
The appeal memorandum must be filed in quadruplicate (four complete sets) before the Registrar or Bench Officer of the Tribunal, with the primary set bearing the original certified copy of the Commissioner (Appeals) order and the remaining three sets bearing authenticated photocopies.
2.3 Limitation and the 60-Day Rule
The appeal must be filed within 60 days of the date on which the Commissioner (Appeals) order is communicated to the assessee (or, where the Commissioner of Taxes is the appellant against a relief granted, to the Commissioner). Condonation is available under Section 289(3) upon a sufficiently supported affidavit, applying the same "sufficient cause" standard developed under Section 285 jurisprudence.
2.4 Evidentiary Practice: The Tribunal as Final Fact-Finder
Because the Tribunal constitutes the terminal fact-finding authority in the appellate hierarchy, findings recorded here typically foreclose further factual challenge — the High Court Division's reference jurisdiction under Section 306 is confined to law. Practitioners must therefore treat Tribunal proceedings as the decisive evidentiary battleground: audited financial statements, withholding certificates, bank reconciliations, and third-party confirmations should all be marshalled and formally tendered at this stage, since deficiencies here cannot ordinarily be remedied through a subsequent reference application.
2.5 Interlocutory Stay Practice Against Coercive Recovery
A critical practical reality is that filing an appeal does not automatically stay tax recovery under Sections 275–276. The DCT retains authority to attach bank accounts, intercept trade receivables, or register charges over assets once the payment period specified in the Section 214 Notice of Demand lapses. Assessees must therefore file a distinct interlocutory application for stay of demand, demonstrating:
- A prima facie case on the merits of the substantive appeal;
- Balance of convenience favouring suspension of recovery; and
- Irreparable financial injury absent a stay (e.g., operational paralysis from frozen accounts).
Tribunal-granted stays are typically time-bound, valid for an initial period not exceeding 60 to 90 days, requiring periodic renewal applications tracked meticulously by counsel to avoid inadvertent lapse and resultant recovery action.
3. Reference to the High Court Division (Sections 306–308)
3.1 The Jurisdictional Boundary: Law versus Fact
Section 306 confers jurisdiction on the High Court Division to entertain a reference exclusively on a question of law arising from the Tribunal's final order. This is not a general appeal — the High Court Division does not re-weigh evidence, re-assess credibility, or substitute its own valuation for that of the Tribunal.
The foundational precedent is Dr. Nurul Islam v. Taxes Appellate Tribunal (1987) 39 DLR (AD) 205, where the Appellate Division held unequivocally that the High Court Division, exercising reference jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate or substitute factual findings made by the Tribunal. The Court's role is confined to determining whether the Tribunal's conclusion was legally sustainable, or whether its factual findings were perverse, unsupported by any evidence, or arrived at through a demonstrable misconstruction of documentary evidence — the latter category being the narrow gateway through which an ostensibly factual dispute may be recast as a legal one.
3.2 Limitation, Fees, and Procedural Mechanics
The reference application must be filed within 90 days of service of the Tribunal's order, accompanied by a statutory fee of BDT 2,000 paid via Treasury Challan. Procedure is governed by Chapter XI of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973. Unlike the lower tiers, Section 306 does not impose an automatic additional percentage pre-deposit at this stage, though the Court retains full discretion in granting or refusing interim stay against coercive recovery pending disposal of the reference.
3.3 Framing Sustainable Questions of Law
The single greatest drafting risk at this stage is disguising a factual grievance as a legal question. A defective formulation might read: "Whether the Tribunal was correct in disbelieving the assessee's cash book entries." Such a question invites summary dismissal under the Dr. Nurul Islam doctrine. A sustainable formulation instead isolates statutory construction or jurisdictional error:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Taxes Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the disallowance of expenditure under Section 55 of the Income Tax Act, 2023 without examining whether the payments fell outside the scope of statutory withholding under Chapter VII?"
The reference petition must include a complete Paper Book with certified copies of all subordinate orders (Tribunal, Commissioner Appeals, DCT), the underlying return, and proof of the BDT 2,000 fee payment, verified by affidavit before the High Court Division's Commissioner of Affidavits.
3.4 Disposal and Remand Effect
Upon final hearing, the High Court Division answers the framed question(s) of law and remands the record to the Tribunal, directing it to pass consequential orders conforming to the High Court's opinion. The reference mechanism therefore does not itself dispose of the tax liability finally — it clarifies the governing law, leaving final quantification to the Tribunal.
4. Residual Remedies: The Appellate Division and Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
4.1 Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal under Article 103
A party aggrieved by the High Court Division's judgment on reference may seek leave to appeal to the Appellate Division under Article 103 of the Constitution, typically within 30 days. Leave is granted sparingly, generally where the matter involves a substantial question of law of general public importance or conflicting High Court Division precedents requiring authoritative resolution.
4.2 Article 102 Writ Jurisdiction as an Emergency Bypass
Where coercive recovery proceedings under Sections 275–276 threaten to render a pending statutory appeal nugatory — for instance, where the DCT or Inspecting Additional Commissioner refuses to withhold enforcement despite a properly filed appeal and pending stay application — an assessee may petition the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution for extraordinary writ relief. Courts have entertained such petitions where arbitrary realization of demand undermines the constitutional right to a meaningful appellate remedy, though the writ route remains an exception to, not a substitute for, the statutory appellate hierarchy.
5. Alternative Dispute Resolution (Sections 316–323)
Chapter XX's ADR provisions offer a non-adversarial settlement track accessible during pendency before the DCT, the Commissioner (Appeals), or the Tribunal — though notably not after a reference has reached the High Court Division. A neutral facilitator mediates between the assessee and the Commissioner's nominee, with the resulting settlement agreement being final and generally non-appealable once formally executed. ADR is particularly valuable where the underlying factual dispute is weak (e.g., unverifiable cash credits) and the assessee's primary objective is to cap escalating statutory interest under Sections 72–78 and Section 270 rather than pursue prolonged litigation.
Statutory Document Checklist
Tier 1 — Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals)
- Memorandum of Appeal (duplicate, signed and verified)
- Original Notice of Demand issued under Section 214
- Certified copy of the DCT's Assessment Order (with service envelope/proof of delivery)
- Original A-Challan evidencing the mandatory 10% pre-deposit under Section 286
- Return of income and acknowledgment receipt for the relevant assessment year
- Audited financial statements, tax computation sheet, and depreciation schedules
- Supporting evidentiary documents: ledger extracts, withholding tax certificates, bank statements
- Vakalatnama/Power of Attorney on prescribed stamp paper
- Limitation condonation petition and supporting affidavit (if filed beyond 60 days)
Tier 2 — Taxes Appellate Tribunal
- Memorandum of Appeal in quadruplicate with verified Statement of Facts and Grounds
- Certified copy of the Commissioner (Appeals) order (original in the primary set)
- Copy of the original DCT Assessment Order and Notice of Demand
- Treasury Challan for the BDT 1,000 Tribunal filing fee
- Treasury Challan evidencing the additional 10% pre-deposit under Section 289(2)
- Indexed Paper Book comprising the full assessment record and prior written submissions
- Vakalatnama accepted by an Advocate, Chartered Accountant, or Cost and Management Accountant
- Interlocutory stay application with supporting affidavit
Tier 3 — High Court Division (Reference)
- Reference Petition framing precise questions of law under Section 306
- Verifying affidavit sworn before the Oath Commissioner/Affidavit Commissioner
- Certified copy of the Tribunal's order with proof of service date
- Certified copies of the Commissioner (Appeals) order and DCT Assessment Order
- Complete High Court Paper Book with all underlying records
- Treasury Challan evidencing the BDT 2,000 statutory fee
- Vakalatnama executed and accepted by an Advocate on the Roll of the Supreme Court
Regulatory Fees, Timelines & Penalty Matrix
| Stage | Forum | Limitation | Mandatory Deposit/Fee | Statutory Basis | Consequence of Default |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | Commissioner (Appeals) | 60 days from service of Demand Notice | 10% of (Assessed − Admitted Tax); Vakalatnama stamp BDT 20–50 | Sections 284–287 | Appeal rejected in limine/non-est; recovery proceeds under Sections 275–276 |
| Stage 2 | Taxes Appellate Tribunal | 60 days from service of Comm. (Appeals) order | Additional 10% of confirmed tax; BDT 1,000 fee | Sections 288–292 | Appeal treated as incompetent; underlying demand becomes immediately enforceable |
| Stage 3 | High Court Division | 90 days from service of Tribunal order | BDT 2,000 statutory fee | Sections 306–308 | Reference barred by limitation absent Section 5 Limitation Act condonation |
| Stage 4 | Appellate Division | 30 days from HCD judgment | Supreme Court Registry fees | Article 103, Constitution | Loss of final appellate review; HCD judgment attains finality |
| Parallel | ADR Facilitator | Any time before final Tribunal order | Nominal administrative fee | Sections 316–323 | Reversion to standard litigation track |
| Ongoing | Statutory Interest | Continuous accrual during pendency | 12–24% p.a. simple interest on unpaid demand | Sections 72–78, 270 | Compounding financial exposure irrespective of ultimate appellate outcome |
Common Legal Traps & Compliance Pitfalls
Pitfall 1 — Miscalculating the 10% Pre-Deposit. Taxpayers frequently compute the deposit against disputed taxable income rather than the actual tax differential inclusive of surcharge and minimum tax. Following BSRM Steels Ltd., any shortfall is fatal, not curable by post-filing top-up. Mitigation: Independently recompute the deposit using the statutory formula, reconcile against the Section 214 demand figure, and confirm A-Challan clearance before filing.
Pitfall 2 — Misjudging the Limitation Start Date. Counting 60/90 days from the order's face date rather than actual service, ignoring the Syed A.B.M. Pk. exclusion for certified-copy delivery delays. Mitigation: Preserve postal tracking records or electronic transmission logs, and always file a protective Section 5 condonation application where any doubt exists.
Pitfall 3 — Assuming Appeal Filing Stays Recovery. Sections 275–276 permit coercive bank account attachment notwithstanding a pending appeal. Mitigation: File a dedicated interlocutory stay application simultaneously with the appeal, and be prepared to escalate to an Article 102 writ petition if enforcement authorities disregard the pending stat
Frequently Asked Questions
◆ Related Statutory Guides & Practice Insights
<li style="margin-bottom:12px; line-height:1.5;">
<a href="/en/dual-nationality-certificate-dnc-nvr-bangladesh-expat/" style="color:#C5A059; font-weight:600; text-decoration:none; font-size:14px; display:inline-block; transition:color 0.2s;">• Master-Class Legal Guide to Dual Nationality Certificates (DNC) & Expatriate Legal Rights in Bangladesh</a>
</li>
<li style="margin-bottom:12px; line-height:1.5;">
<a href="/en/customs-bond-license-for-export-oriented-industries-in-bangladesh-eligibility-audit-renewal/" style="color:#C5A059; font-weight:600; text-decoration:none; font-size:14px; display:inline-block; transition:color 0.2s;">• Customs Bond License for Export-Oriented Industries in Bangladesh: Eligibility, Audit & Renewal</a>
</li>
<li style="margin-bottom:12px; line-height:1.5;">
<a href="/en/fire-license-commercial-building-bangladesh/" style="color:#C5A059; font-weight:600; text-decoration:none; font-size:14px; display:inline-block; transition:color 0.2s;">• Fire License Commercial Building Bangladesh: Complete FSCD Handbook</a>
</li>
<li style="margin-bottom:12px; line-height:1.5;">
<a href="/en/environmental-clearance-certificate-doe-bangladesh-legal-handbook/" style="color:#C5A059; font-weight:600; text-decoration:none; font-size:14px; display:inline-block; transition:color 0.2s;">• Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) DoE Bangladesh: Ultimate Factory & Real Estate Developer Legal Handbook 2026</a>
</li>What are the mandatory pre-deposit requirements under the Income Tax Act 2023 before filing tax appeals?
Under the Income Tax Act 2023, an aggrieved taxpayer must satisfy statutory pre-deposits to validate an appeal memo. For a First Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 284, the taxpayer must pay 10% of the difference between the assessed tax and admitted tax liability. For a Second Appeal before the Taxes Appellate Tribunal under Section 291, an additional 10% of the disputed tax must be paid. If seeking a Reference before the High Court Division under Section 308, 15% of the remaining disputed tax must be deposited before the application can be entertained.
Can the delay beyond the statutory limitation period be condoned by appellate authorities?
Yes. Both the Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) under Section 284(3) and the Taxes Appellate Tribunal under Section 291(4) hold statutory discretion to condone limitation delays beyond the standard 60-day window, provided the appellant demonstrates 'sufficient cause' through a formal condonation petition supported by an affidavit and corroborating evidence.
What qualifies as a valid 'question of law' for a Reference Application to the High Court Division?
A Reference to the High Court Division under Section 308 is strictly restricted to questions of pure law or mixed questions of law and fact arising directly from the Tribunal's appellate order. Findings of pure fact finalized by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal are conclusive. Valid questions of law include misconstruction of statutory provisions, decisions resting on zero admissible evidence, jurisdictional ultra vires, or gross breach of the principles of natural justice.
Does lodging a tax appeal automatically suspend recovery proceedings by the tax authority?
No. Under the Income Tax Act 2023, the mere lodging of a memorandum of appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of the demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (DCT). The taxpayer must file an explicit interlocutory stay petition before the relevant appellate authority, showing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and imminent threat of irreparable financial harm (such as bank account freeze under Section 275).
How does Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) interact with a pending tax appeal?
Under Chapter XX (Sections 315–321) of the Income Tax Act 2023, a taxpayer can initiate ADR either after receiving an assessment order or during the pendency of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Taxes Appellate Tribunal. If an ADR application is admitted, the formal appellate proceedings are stayed. If a consensual settlement is reached and signed by the Facilitator, it becomes binding, conclusive, and non-appealable in any court of law.
What remedies are available if the High Court Division decides against the taxpayer in a Reference Application?
If the High Court Division rules against the taxpayer in an income tax Reference, the taxpayer's recourse is to invoke the constitutional and statutory jurisdiction of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh under Section 314 of the Income Tax Act 2023 read with Article 103 of the Constitution, by filing a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (CP) within the limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules.