Find a Lawyer

FAUJI SUGAR MILL THROUGH IJAZ AHMAD AWAN versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Establishment of Section 45B Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000V), Section 2 (3) Appellant and Complainant contend that the production of appropriate documentary evidence did not permit the determination of sales tax The burden is not gone. The individual appellate authority had actually filed a legitimate appeal for the consumer against the order in which all these points were taken. The collector (appeal) should also take into account the shortcomings that he has. That is proof that this burden was not shifted. If the user was given the opportunity to do so, in the appeal, the entire case was reopened and the appellate forum had all the options while deciding on the appeal to be granted to the appellant if the circumstances of the case were Are searched according to the validity of the Present evidence in dispute of any case The order in the dispute was actually based only on the basis of which the complainant did not present e-evidence to prove that the sales tax burden paid was not transferred to the consumer. Therefore, it would be too much material for the Appellate Forum to decide whether to present the evidence in this case without giving the complainant an opportunity. Respect for full justice, however, was filed before the Collector rather than the Complaint Instructor, and for this matter, the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman was not banned because the matter was not pending on the date of filing the complaint. But the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends that after the collector's appeal, after considering the complainant and the convictions raised by him, advocates from Samma Satta lawyer