CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ ARIF versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY LAW, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, ISLAMABAD
Section 130 (3) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Member Rules, 1988, R3 Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance (XLV of 1977), Section 7 (3) (a) Constitution of Pakistan, Arts 193 (2), 240, 242 and 199 Constitutions The appointment of the petitioner to the petitioner, the writ of the Agent of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, asked the respondents about the appointment of members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Judicial) to ask questions related to the service of Pakistan. And fell under Article 240 of the Constitution. Under section 130 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, appointments against the positions under questions were made by the Federal Public Service Commission as advised in Article 242 of the Constitution Act, which cannot be interpreted in this way The provisions of Articles 240 and 242 of the Constitution and the Income Tax Provisions Ordinance, 2001, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Member Rules, 1988, on the day of the closing and the appointment of the respondents, the lower and lower age of the High Court Judge. The limit was 40 years since the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act (III of 2003) was underway and the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act (X of 2010) was still in force as members. But the choice of the defendants was not (judicial) choice. And they are more than 41 years old In accordance with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Member Rules, 1988, Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and Article 193 of the Constitution, the appointment of the respondents was past and the transaction was bound to be closed. ? Not to be discouraged and disappointed The High Court refused to interfere with the defendants' appointments because the members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Petition (Judicial) were dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
