METAL CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, LAHORE versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Section 34, 33 (2), 35 (2) and 45 (2) of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 v. XXV), Section 2 (3) of the Additional Tax (default surcharge) showcase notice Not requested. The Sales Tax Act was an order of 1990 but additional taxes were demanded. Valid surcharges cannot be legally demanded by law order because Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 was not, nor was it, sought in the showcase notice to recover it. The penalty imposed under Section 33 (2) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 was not legally sustainable as the complainant did not have to face the specific clause of section 3 (2) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 before committing such misconduct. Had to The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that under Section 45A of the Salon Tax Act 1990, the Revenue Division be directed to the competent authority to reopen an invalid order. And also eliminate the fine of Rs. 25,000 by removing the additional tax demand, which was imposed under Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and the order will be stayed in the original. \ 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.
