MILLI TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Establishment of office of section (56 (a) and Federal 36 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) Finance Act (III of 1998), order of advance, judgment, etc.) relating to `` disappointment ''. Order Approved End of Hearing Date; Not enough time was allowed to explain the claim and although the complainant failed to conclusively prove the error of service of the showcase notice, it was not beyond doubt. This was a reflection of neglect and neglect by the Revenue and fell into admiration. In the meaning of section 2 (3) (ii) of establishing the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance `Corruption 'Federal 200. 0 The Federal Tax Ombudsman observed that the order may in fact not be retained - that the authorized authority may actually cancel the said order and issue fresh notice to the complainant and give it a reasonable opportunity to establish its claim. The Central Board of Revenue issued instructions to its subordinate offices that the presenting service authority should note the date on which any notice was denied, while retaining its record. Service was attempted on. The name of the person trying to serve; the name of the person who refused service and was covered by the taxpayers around the courier service, received from the taxpayers. properly r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
