Find a Lawyer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD versus AKHLAQ CLOTH HOUSE, FAISALABAD

Article 32 Office of the Federal Ombudsman Order (1 of 1983), Article 32 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Intra Court of Appeals The President accepted the representatives against the Federal Tax Ombudsman Order by Scope The High Court set aside the order passed on representation on the basis that the President made the decision without giving the parties a chance to have a personal hearing and was accepted where the person / party concerned should be represented. Notice / opportunity to reply / reply was given, the President's decision cannot be canceled simply because he / she is unable to make a personal / oral hearing. Where, however, the person / party concerned had no notice / opportunity to file a comment or submit a reply and the decision was made without such opportunity, the representation needs to be reconsidered and the notice and so on. AR needs to decide after the opportunity to file a reply / comment, especially since the representative had the opportunity to file a response which was decided by the Speaking Order, using the High Court Constitutional Jurisdiction Division Bench No interference with the order was guaranteed, which was approved by a single judge of the High Court Intra-Court. In the circumstances it was allowed famous supreme court advocate from Kohistan lawyer