Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR CUSTOMS (HQRS.),

Customs Act 1969 Section 194B (2) Income Tax Ordinance (XNXII of 1979), Section 156 Income Tax Act (XI of 1922), Section 35 Redressal of Customs Jurisdiction, Excise and Sales \ Appellant's Fax Appellate Tribunal scope vehicle seized The customs authorities filed the same charge under appellant under section 194B (2 :) of the Customs Act, 1969, alleging that there was an error in the order passed by the tribunal as the appellant's lawyer was not present. Before the tribunal could rectify it because of its illness and error, the scope of the applicability of the provision of section 194B (2) of the Customs Act, 1969 exceeded the parallel supply of section 35 of the Income Tax Act. Broader, the Income Tax Ordinance of 1979, the Income Tax Ordinance of 1922, 1915 and 5156 of 1922, as well as the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, can also be properly used to correct the error which was born according to its order. The tribunal did not stop any case at the present trial, recalling its earlier order should have erred in the interest of justice The appeal was not a mistake to separate the order was passed by the Tribunal and its application in corrective filing was considered the pending appeal before a tribunal to appeal family advocate from Rahimyar Khan lawyer