A.A. BROTHERS versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (REVENUE DIVISION), ISLAMABAD
Section 32 (3) Section RO, 333 (I) / 2002, Article 15 6 2002 Section RO 477 (I) / 2003, Constitution Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Petition Tariff, Wrong Printing in Article 7 6 2003 The impact of the background on correction of rates was a jurisdiction for applicants to complain; customs officials could not demand a smaller central excise duty because the rates were misinterpreted. Accuracy is the difference between imposed or imposed and incorrect printing, while incorrect printing can be a mistake. Maulvi or otherwise the customs authorities did not probe on their own in the matter of how misinterpretation has occurred at the relevant information and is not intended to be done in the future, therefore, the applicants should leave it Were not solely responsible for It has been alleged that their contents have been secretly released, that the applicants had sold their materials and then it was impossible to impose such duty before they had purchased a statement of consignment issued by the Federal Board of Revenue. , Could potentially be implemented effectively and not with previous effect, therefore, the High Court granted arbitrary relief to applicants choosing between two or more alternatives, all of which Are legal. The court observed that discretion would not be used properly to deny relief to a party whereby it was entitled under the High Court of Law under constitutional jurisdiction, it was declared that the applicants Recovery notices have been issued and are set up on any basis. On one hand the requests were allowed to go into the situation
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
