Find a Lawyer

MESSRS WELFARE TRADING COMPANY versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 10 (4), 37, 37 (A) and 73 of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), section 2 (3) (ii) in a return notice transaction through a banking channel A sales tax refund claim was filed in April. In 2002 it was supported by Input Tax Invoice on which a single written payment with a sales tax registration number was made through a pay order from a bank bank stating that the pay order supply account I was submitted to the same branch. The bank had a heavy credit balance in the account of the supplier on the same dates from 5 2002 to 29 2002 11 2002, the same day was Rs 39,00,848 700, the same day withdraw Rs 39,00,000. The department asserted that there was no physical transfer of goods and that the invoices submitted by the complainant were forged and claimed that they were rejected under section 10 (4) of the Sales Tax Act 1990. There was a counterfeit refund. Legitimate officers of the Calcutta were negligent in pursuing the matter. to April-August, 2002, when there were heavy transactions in bank accounts, no serious attempt was made to properly submit the summons, nor to terminate the withdrawal process and delay the commission reduction, negligence. , Reflects incompetence and ineligibility of the relevant officer. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the member sales tax, the Central Board of Revenue, assign the case to at least two competent assistant collectors in the committee, with the sole responsibility of taking all legal steps and appropriate action according to the department's law. To make inquiries in relation to matters and transactions family advocate from Hujra Shah Muqeem lawyer