Find a Lawyer

MESSRS S.F. TRADERS versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Formation of Section 10 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) 7 refund complaint filed against illegal decision and dismissal of sales tax refund claim of Rs 30,43,132. Was gone No showcase notice was received, judicial decision was past, no audit observation was issued, payment was made through cross checks / bank drafts, taxable goods prices including sales tax were paid by them and if there was no provider So the department will not refuse a refund. The Sheriff's Department, in its reply, had taken the stand that the refund was made on fake / fly invoices made in the same premises and that the complainant and the supplier were the same and the requirements of Section 73 of the Cell Tax Act Banking was done to manipulate transactions to meet. , 1951, and that the judicial order was valid and there was no error in it was not paid by the oices and input tax suppliers because the complainant was not presented on the complainant and dismissed the invoice in a timely decision. had gone. Not every invoice and transaction J was checked. Reasonable reasons were not provided as a Provider, sales channels should be checked before rejection of sales tax transfer claims regarding quality, quantity and quantity rejected by banking channels. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the order passed by the Central Board of Revenue be set aside. The Deputy Collector for Sales Tax and instruct the Collector to transfer goods against valid transportation documents, Sales best law firm from Lakimarwat lawyer