Find a Lawyer

LION STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. LAHORE versus C.I.R., R.T.O., LAHORE

Article 21 mistake mistake mistake Appellate Tribunal returned its order twice for the purpose of recalling the order for the same purpose that the applicant had to sleep after hearing the petition every time the matter was unnecessarily under consideration. There was evidence of his desire to be deferred. As long as possible the said behavior was not tolerable, however, for the sake of fair and fair play, the appellate tribunal provided the applicant with a final opportunity to represent his case and allow the prayer and the central order. Its original number was restored. The taxpayers were burdened with a special cost of Rs 500 on filing illegal petitions and irresponsible behavior which wasted valuable time on the tribunal and prevented the wrong practice. Tribunal Bar Renewal Fund Account \ r \ n \ r \ n

Related judgments — Inland, 2014

• C.I.R., ZONE-I, LTU, KARACHI v. KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI 2014 PTD 1428
• DILPASAND TEXTILE MILLS, FAISALABAD v. C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2014 PTD 1467
• C.I.R., ZONE-VI, R.T.O., LAHORE v. SANAWAR HUSSAIN 2014 PTD 1476
• NAMCO ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE v. C.I.R. ZONE-VII, R.T.O-II, LAHORE 2014 PTD 1492
• 2014 PTD 1542 2014 PTD 1542
• FAISALABAD ELECTRIC COMPANY v. C.I.R, ZONE-I, R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2014 PTD 1629
• EPLA LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI 2014 PTD 1692
• HUDA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD v. C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2014 PTD 1698

All Inland judgments of 2014 →

criminal advocate from Kandiaro lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes