Find a Lawyer

AL-HABIB NYLON CORPORATION, LAHORE versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 33 and 30 of the Finance Ordinance (XII of 1982) constituted the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 of XXV), Section 9 Refund Surcharge Refund claimed on the basis that the surcharge was levied at 10% instead of 5%. What was actually imposed was not decided after a period of about 10 10 years, without knowing whether the correct rate of surcharge was applied or whether the refund was due. This is a corruption case in which a refund application was filed more than ten years ago. The settlement case was still pending. It was not whether the matter has been dealt with in the past or has been rejected or accepted, the department should assist in the work of the complainant in recovering the claim for refund. It should then be decided on its ability to rebuild and the matter, resulting in the demand for an inquiry to resolve the delay and to ascertain its responsibility. The same Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Revenue Division direct the customs authority, as indicated, to reconfigure the relevant files of the complainant and, as per the provisions of the law, the complainant's claim for return. To be judged on the merits of Initiate an investigation to investigate the reasons for the lack of time and the delay in processing / adjudicating the complainant's claim for a refund, and taking appropriate action against these individuals. Identifying those responsible for the delay which led to unforeseen delays. female advocates from Gojra lawyer