Find a Lawyer

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

The Section 32 Office of the Federal Ombudsman Order (I of 1983), Article 32 la Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), the President of the Section 3 intra-court, accepted representation against the Federal Tax Ombudsman Order under Scope's representation. 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 there was no personal / oral hearing where, however, the relevant person / party had to file a comment or reply. There was no notice / opportunity to enter and the decision was made without such opportunity, the representation needs to be reconsidered. After the notice was decided and the opportunity to file the same reply / comment again, the delegates had the opportunity to file a representative response which was decided by the Speech Order, by the Constitutional Jurisdiction Division Bench of the High Court. The use was not guaranteed to interfere with the order which was approved by a single judge of the High Court Intra Court. In the circumstances it was allowed famous supreme court advocate from Gojra lawyer