ARMY WELFARE TRUST - NIZAMPUR CEMENT PLANT, RAWALPINDI versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, ISLAMABAD
On the basis of the decisions of Article 44 44, Arts 25 and 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the petitioner has demanded a refund of the overpayment, in which he is not a scope judge of the Supreme Court in which the principle of law is recognized. The decision to remain will be decided by the parties, so that non-parties can take advantage of it. If such facts and circumstances are involved in their case then the provision of Section 44 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 could neither prohibit litigation. And does not prevent the applicant from taking advantage and for this the applicant claiming a one year limitation condition The duty-payer shall not apply under the error of law or fact which came to his notice after the decision, after which such decision shall not be applied to any non-party matter. As a result, discrimination violates Article 25 of the Constitution. Duty for the applicant as a matter of right will be non-refundable and will be denied without legal authority
