PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA), LAHORE versus C.I.R., LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, LAHORE
Section 45B (3) de novo appeal for remand case The case was remanded for a reassessment of the facts and a fresh commitment by the First Appellate Authority to consider the demand for a presentation presentation. Was found to be unsustainable. In view of the mandatory prohibition contained in Section 45B (3) of the Cell Tax Act 1990 by the First Appellate Authority, the matter was remanded pending de novo, without such remand order, Otherwise, there was no justification for the remand of the case. And the burden of proof to show that the reason stated in the notice applies to the recipient of income tax on the income tax which is in violation of the statutory orders by the classification of the courts. In addition, the remand also indirectly reverses the proposed limit. Such remand was deemed not only illegal under the law and for de novo consideration, but was also blatant as de novo, separating the remanded issues could lead to different stages of litigation over the question of law. Because of this, two opinions cannot be opened because there was no justification for the allegations in the showcase notice and the details of the underlying facts, so the length was not justified. The lengthy litigation over taxpayers' costs and inconvenience, especially when the legal provisions explicitly banned such remand, made the first appellate authority unlawful in seeking remand on the untimely issue. ?
