Find a Lawyer

ADAM SUGAR MILLS LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 34 (1), 33 (5) and 2 (37) constitute the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 XXV), Section 9 default surcharge to the complainant on the same charges, the same charges and a fresh one The show was presented with the cause notice. In the same period, which was earlier decided up to the level of the appellate tribunal complainant, it was submitted that the matter had already been decided and since the show cause notice included the same charge and the same period and the appellate tribunal had already decided. The charge was waived. And the fine, the department was unable to make a decision on the matter again because it violated the appellate tribunal's order ignoring the complainant's response and the appellate tribunal's decision, the Adjudicating Officer directed the complainant. Originally passed a new order for default surcharge and penalty payment for default period through appellate tribunal verification since the late payment was due to good cause as to e-appellate tribunal No purpose in issuing notices and deciding the trial for the same offense Had. When paying late taxes for the same period, the collector should have felt the spirit of the tribunal's order and should have stopped issuing fresh. For that reason, show the notice and decide the case for the same offense and the same period which was already decided on the proceedings of the department, there was double risk which could result in the complainant being punished for the same offense. A decision was already made on the show cause notice and order. The Federal Tax Ombudsman suggested that the Revenue Division give the competent authority to open sales tax act attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Gaggo Mandi lawyer