Find a Lawyer

WATTAN TECHNICAL INDUSTRY, GUJRANWALA versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

The establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), sections 2 (3) (ii), IV and V of the Additional Payment for Complaint Delayed Returns, states that year 2000 01 and Despite the completion of the tax assessment of 2001 02. , A refund voucher about which the complainant was entitled was not issued. The complainant also claimed that the delayed payment of additional payment for return claiming that the net income in response was diminished and that the required amount of confirmation was not refunded, that the period of evaluation had already been completed. Refunds were withheld due to pending verification of Central Board of Revenue Circular No. 2/1998 dated 16 2 1998 and Circular Letter No. ITP 3 (21) / 85 dated 24 11 1985 which contains the verification instructions. It did not comply with the associated tax payment proof. The return, to the extent of the default liability, was equal to the proof of receipt of excessive tax from such liability. The original evidence of the disclosure of the proportional evidence of such payment by the investigating officer was presented to the taxpayer in original Invoices, electricity and telephone bills, tax payment certificates, deductions and receipts were the biggest drawbacks. Instruct the relevant authorities and tax employees to deal with common system malfunctions. Issuance of refund vouchers and payment of 15% compensation due to the complainant under Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 patent advocate from Feroz Walla lawyer