CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MULTAN versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Section 2 Section Constitution Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 The Constitutional Jurisdiction of High Court Scope Facts needs to prove that the Cantonment Board has been hired or auctioned. Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, so he evaluated the executive officer of the Board of Cantonment, who was a government employee of the board, who decided that he had leased the properties and did not sell them and refused to pay the tax. After which he was treated. As the default property under section 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, the responsibility for the accuracy of 1979 was determined without having to be affiliated with the Board and was allegedly based on several years by a mechanical order and accessing the board account The officer was forcibly retrieved. Whether it was paid on a tax year or in solidarity, whether it was forcibly received or not, and Cantonment BOARD and the executive officer said that the board was the only institution to which evidence and decisions were made. Required a detailed review of the writ which could not be taken under the writ jurisdiction because the constitutional petition was not enforceable. \ r \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
