Find a Lawyer

ALUMINUM PROCESSING INDUSTRIAL INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. versus PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD

Sections 45A, 45B, 46 and 72 decide or order the appellate authority Power of the Board of Revenue to seek the record and satisfy itself of the legal status or ownership of such decision or order to the scope appellate authority. Always worked independently without any department. Opinion proceedings before the appellate court are always considered to be separate from the normal and routine court proceedings, whereas the appellate authority may not interfere with or exercise the powers of a court under Section 45A of the Sales Tax Act 1990. The court's discretion is imposed or Appellate Authority Interference shall be the equivalent of a disturbing matter resolving the appellate authority's interference by the Board, where, if there is a complaint against the Department, the Tribunal may file an appeal before the Board either interrupting or interrupting the pending proceedings. Has no jurisdiction Appellate Authority or TriboCell Rules

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ alias TIMON v. State 2011 YLR 2066
• SHABIR AHMED v. State 2011 YLR 2072
• KARACHI BULK STORAGE AND TERMINALS (PVT.) LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS 2011 PTD 2103
• DELHI MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. v. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SINDH HYDERABAD 2011 YLR 2121
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI v. B.R.R. INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI 2011 PTD 2148
• WAHID GUL v. State 2011 YLR 2155
• GHAZI TANNERIES LTD., KARACHI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE `B\', KARACHI 2011 PTD 2161
• PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance Central Board of Revenue 2011 PTD 2175

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

top advocates from Mian Walli lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes