Find a Lawyer

NEW AL-QAMAR TRADER versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Article 59 (1) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) CBR Circular No. 7 of 2002, Dated 15 6 2002 Para 9 (a) (ii) CBR Circular No. 7 (7) / Section Assistant / 2002, dated 17 12 2002 Evaluation Year 2002 2003 Opportunities to be heard were selected for total audit on the issue which declared that the net profit rate was higher than the previous year. It is less and in addition to the other parallel issues, the SC has held that no opportunity of hearing was provided for the Audit Department prior to the case selection that the complainant / reviewer asked to file an objection. Went A, which was complied with and if the Regional Commissioner Income Tax did not get a hearing, the complainant / reviewer could hear the specific request for the same hearing that the response to the objection was not filed. A personal hearing was to be held so that the parties could present their case to the relevant administration. The Horty Central Board of Revenue, in its circular, dated 17.12 2002, directed that the Regional Commissioner should compete with income tax reviewers to provide them with a fair opportunity to be heard, and the basis for their proposed selection. They should be notified in the notice. Acknowledged that no hearing was requested and was given the opportunity to object only, which was followed. The most important point was that the principles of natural justice should not have been satisfied in this case, which was repealed by the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax. The issuance of notice of vague notice was not in accordance with the directions of the Central Board of Revenue as only the reply to the notice was sought. tax advocates from Kahror Pacca lawyer