Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO. 905/IB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2005. versus I.T.A. NO. 905/IB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2005.

Section 134 Appellate Tribunal Order was first appealed by the Appellate Authority after the appellate officer accepted his charge of office on 19 7 2002 when there was no date or order of self-hearing in that order. The pass date was not taken, the receipt date is listed. The order itself was assessed at $ 25. Such an order was never submitted to the department, however, a copy of it was provided to the department by the Assisi on 17 1 2003, there is no indication of the date on which this order was legally submitted. had gone. The parties were initially objected to maintaining the SCC's appeal in this case, however, the order of the First Appellate Authority was fake, illegal and void as the order appeared in a mysterious way. Not long after the signing officer, he was transferred and resigned on 19 7 2002 as First Appellate Authority. His office should not have been allowed to do anything with the judicial function of the office to which he had previously ordered that the superiority of the outgoing officer fail to comply with the order of the party, an impunity. The mistake was, due to the fact that no order was issued to the tax (no one was on record) preventing the department from going to appeal, such actions were deliberate, fraud against the Revenue Order. Equal to the promise of yogurt. Previously the appellate authority was declared illegal, unlawful and preliminary and the appellate tribunal did not have the importance of being a quorum non-judge in any case and the appeal of the SC in this case is still pending. when you need a advocate from Madinah lawyer