MUGHAL-E-AZAM BANQUET COMPLEX versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY
Article 3 Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Preamble to the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Petition for Notices of Judiciary Barring judicial authorities and the fulfillment of their legal duties that must be exercised independently of external control. The petitioner, in the present case, had the opportunity to present the matter to the relevant authority who was able to look into the matter. In addition, receipts for the facts were broader through appeal or revision against the order passed in this procedure; the applicant had already filed his / her responses to the showcase notice and the matter was pending before the relevant authority. However, the applicant may demand constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court, if the showcase notice was not issued by a competent authority or in the showcase notice was clearly liable and without jurisdiction where the showcase notice was acknowledged by any competent authority and from its contents It did not appear to be a violation of the law. The facts of the allegations raised in the showcase notice need to be investigated to determine if the tile applicants served as caterers, the constitutional petition was premature and therefore not intact, however, in the interest of justice. I, the authorities were directed by the High Court to issue the unidentified showcase notices, after hearing and allowing the applicant, within a month of receipt of the present High Court judgment, strictly approving the Speech Order in accordance with the law. Raise all questions of law and facts. \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
