HAZRAT GHANI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Rr 10 (1) (2), (3), 174 and 176 Section RO 422 (I) / 97 Dated 13 6 1997 Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000V of XXXV), Section 2 (3) License The complainant prayed that he was protected from unlawful operations of the Sales Tax and Central Excise Department, who issued a notice for the alleged license fee to be attached to his property, which replied that the Directorate General, The complainant was sued by the Inspection and Internal Audit officials. Under Rule 74 and 76 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, no evidence relating to the service of justification for the receipt of license fees and fines for the period 1990 to 1999 was available on the order of fact. Like the previous complaint, it was found that the case related to the collection of license fee was initiated at the same time and on the basis of which, in the light of Section RO 422 (I) / 97 dated 13 6 1997 Was not required for operation under the Rules 10 (1) and 10 (2) under Rule 10 (1) and 10 (2), in effect from 1 7 1997 to 1 1997 1997. Population 10 (3) was not applicable. False document was filed 1 1 The action to recover the license fee for the period from 1997 to 30 6 2000 was illegal and the Federal Tax Ombudsman without authorization, therefore, recommended that in connection with the imposition of the license fee. I also include all the proceedings in the Complainant's case. The release notice should be canceled and deleted
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
