Find a Lawyer

SOHAIL BIN RASHID versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 10, 7 (2) (1), 8 (1) (a) and 33 (4) constitute the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 v. XXV), Section 2 (3) to carry forward the surplus Or Return Complaint An exporter was not allowed a refund because the complainant failed to provide any evidence in support of the claim that he was physically and actually receiving the goods and the bank invoice Does not indicate the exact amount of transfer against each invoice accordingly. This amount was not transferred to the account shown in the suppliers' registration documents. The receipts of the units should not be entertained for input tax adjustment / refund purposes as these persons were allowed to issue fake cell tax invoices without any manufacturing facilities or matching manufacturing facilities. The department was in the middle of the department. And they did not have any effect on the obligations of the complainant received in the law, rules and regulations during the period of registered taxpayers / suppliers and related taxation; there was no law, no prohibition in the rules after the relevant tax period. After that the list of suspected units used to circulate more. Or, under the rules and regulations only the complainant / buyer was responsible for ensuring that the supplier was a registered person, payment against the tax invoice was made by cross check issued in the name of such suppliers. That were only credited to the payer's account. That the amount of goods recorded in such receipts was used in the export / domestic year preparation was not due to the fact that it was exported to the same State Department. law websites from Chilas lawyer