HASHIM ASLAM BUTT versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Article 9 was the Special Communications Client Petitioner's Address Advocate of the Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Article 199 Constitutional Application, which sought information from Commissioner Inland Revenue investigating authorities investigating their client's representation. The applicant was summoned under the Sales Tax Act 1990. In connection with his client's plea taken by the applicant on his behalf, it was held that the communication between the law and the client was privileged and protected under Article 9 (2) of the Act, the authenticity of 1984. The applicant was requested to disclose the identity of his client as the applicant was engaged on his behalf. In either case, the client and the investigating authorities wanted to use the information that the applicant had forwarded to his client regarding his client. In his ongoing investigation, the client did not disclose his identity to the investigating authorities. The client's identity had become privileged communications under Article 9. Conviction Evidence, 1984 Investigating Authorities could not use the machinery available to them for investigative purposes when a lawyer engaged by a client was forced to locate his client when the client's identity and investigation were ongoing. Authorities could not force the applicant to disclose the identity of his client on the basis that he was representing his client before any other forum or in any other case discussing the client's identity under Article 9 of the Convention of Evidence The 1984 High Court granted the applicant the summons issued in the name of the applicant. Was.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
