Find a Lawyer

GULAB INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 36 (2) (3), 33, 34 and 11 (4) Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) Section R 698 (I) / 96 Dated 22 8 1996 No Tax Receipts Small or small imposed and incorrectly paid refunds were claimed on the use of the power unit and were issued by the department order so as to recover the wrongly approved excess refund. Additionally, additional taxes and penalties were passed on the basis that the input tax was not distributed. It is claimed that the showcase notice was banned from time to time because it was given after a period of three years and the order was actually banned as it passed the decision only 14 months after issuing the showcase notice. The show's notice was not banned. It was issued within three years of the relevant date as the case could not be decided within the time limit because of the termination of the Adjustment Collector and the complainant not being present at the hearing, the notice of valid exhibition was issued. The decision was made on 26 7 2004 and after the expiry of the original period of 90 days listed in section 36 (3) of the Sales Tax Act 1990, 29 2005, the time to decide the matter. No extensions were found in. The order was affected by the time limit and was responsible for canceling the argument that the matter could not be finalized due to the termination of the Collector of Judicial Judgment and since the complainant responded to the notice of case I did not attend, there was no hearing decision, if the complainant did not attend the hearing, within the time limit inheritance advocates near Dandot lawyer