Find a Lawyer

NOVELTY ENTERPRISES LTD. versus COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPEAL), MIRPUR

While rejecting the writ petition of Articles 42 and 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974, the writ petition was rejected with the observation that the petitioner's counsel had said before the court that he had been referred to his client. / The applicant was instructed not to pressurize his application. It was claimed that the writ petition was not set for hearing because he was acquitted and his lawyer did not appear in court on this date nor did he make any statement that he was sent by his client. It is directed not to present writ petition. It was filed in the Supreme Court by the appellant's lawyer. Respondent's counsel also stated in his affidavit that the case was not settled on the date it was dismissed and he did not appear in court on that date, therefore, he was not present in the court. As a way of confirming or contradicting that the petitioner / appellant's lawyer made a statement before the High Court evidence on the record which proved that the CEO was not appointed for the hearing. It was withdrawn and rejected by the High Court and this statement was not referred to the petitioner / appellant's lawyer by him, the order passed by the High Court was not in accordance with the facts of the case, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal. On one hand, the order was recorded by the High Court law firms from Jaffarabad lawyer