Find a Lawyer

TAJ PROCESSING INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD. versus C.I.R. (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD

Section 46 Appeal in default was dismissed on appeal on the date for which neither the taxpayer nor his lawyer received any notice in favor of a legal hearing on the merits. Nor did the reason for expressing his disqualification for taxpayer absenteeism logically show that the request was accepted and the unjustified order was withdrawn and an appeal for a regular hearing to be decided on eligibility. Gone.

Related judgments — Inland, 2011

• AZIZ BROTHERS, RAWALPINDI v. COLLECTOR SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI 2011 PTD 1505
• PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LTD. (P.T.V.C.L.), ISLAMABAD v. COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE 2011 PTD 1513
• COTTON ARTS (PVT.) LTD. v. COLLECTOR SALES TAX, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 1548
• MYKA STEEL (PVT) LTD. v. COLLECTOR, SALES TAX & FEDERAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR 2011 PTD 1588
• NAVEED ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (RTO), FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 1629
• COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISLABAD v. BASHIR PRINTING INDUS., FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 1645
• NIAGRA MILLS (PVT.) LTD, FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR (APPEALS), FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 1656
• BASHIR PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD v. C.I.R. (RTO), FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 1669

All Inland judgments of 2011 →

inheritance advocates near Mehrab Pur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes