Find a Lawyer

S.A. WASTI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 193 and 193 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman's Ordinance of the Office of Establishment (2000 XXV), Section 2 (3) appeal for the Collector (Appeal) was not heard by the Collector of Appeal. But the files were handed over to the Assistant Collector (Probationer) for transfer of the hearing, who has the power to hear and decide the appeal, even with the consent, of an officer notified by the authorized authority, the Central Board of Revenue. And cannot be given to the officer. The legal authority to appoint officers through a gazette notification, with the authority to hear appeals and to decide appeals against an order passed by additional collector officers, is to pass the order only to the person who heard the appeal. And couldn't do that. Be assigned; otherwise this order would be illegal; in the present case, the facts were presented incorrectly. The record surrounds the holding of the hearing. The order was against the law. It was a decision in which the established practices and procedures were completely ignored, without due diligence and without good reason. It was crooked, arbitrary and illogical. It was based on irrelevant grounds and this duty was clear evidence of inadequacy and inability to perform its duties and obligations, which was not ordered by the collector but appealed. The arguments against the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman were established and dismissed because the unreasonable Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Central Board of Revenue be prosecuted inheritance advocates near Fateh Pur lawyer