Find a Lawyer

CH. BILAL AHMAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 63, & 65 and 100 of the offices of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Sections 9 (2) (a) and 2 (3) of the former Part Assessment Refund Jurisdiction Meladenestration Complaints section 100 Refusal was denied forcibly. The Complainant of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, alleged that the Department of Corruption alleges that the matter was sub-judice for all five years and that the return of the relevant years was adjusted against the demand for years estimates and if If not used against the demands, a refund will be issued. Complaints were not filed legally to counter all judicial review orders approved by tax officials or appeals orders, `n charged with failure to issue a refund that caused the complainant. Legally happened. Resources for appeal, review, revision are available in the Legislature in respect of which section 9 sub-section (2) part (b) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 relates to this process in relation to the denial of a legal right No such treatment was provided when it had to be issued immediately after the refund was due, and refunds could not be prevented against future demand. Under Section 103 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the order created corruption. property advocate from Mirpur (AJK) lawyer