Find a Lawyer

MESSRS MUMTAZ GOODS TRANSPORT, SUKKUR versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Formation of Section 122 (5A) Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000V), Section 2 (3) Complaint Reviewing Review Amendment Claims that Revenue on Explanation issued by Central Board of Revenue Division relies. In the notice issued under Rule 122 (5A) of the Income, the comments presented in the complaint were not lawful because they were not binding on the dependent officer who, in accordance with the law, freely and fairly obliged this decision. Was. There was no mention of such directives issued by the Central Board of Revenue, Tax Ordinance, 2001; relying on such instructions in the comments would not in any way affect the legality of this notice. That they were not made the basis for this release. According to the law, the judicial officer, according to the law, will decide the case of injustice in the comments filed in the complaint with justice. No such explanation or instructions were bound by the authorities who would decide the cases in a valid way, the Federal Tax Ombudsman dealt with the observation that the complainant responded to all of his requests in response to the notice issued by him. And free to pick up points. Adjusting officer who, after considering the above decisions and the case case presented to the complainant by the other case law, will proceed legally, independently, in accordance with the law. \ n when you need a advocate from Nankana Sahib lawyer