Find a Lawyer

AZAM TEXTILE MILLS LTD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 34, 36 (1), 33 (2) (CC) of the Gaming Industry Rules, 1996 and 57 Rule 1271 (I) of the Special Rules, 1996, Section 6 of 2002 constituted Section RO of 2002 134 (I) Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000V of XXXV), Section 2 (3) issuing additional tax, actually issuing the order's corneum, stating that the original amount was paid late, demanding additional tax. The order was imposed and the penalty imposed was passed in another case and the complainant / reviewer complainant applied the same claim that in addition to the corrigendum, the order was equal to `corruption to Went That the order was actually approved in a stereotypical manner, with no record of the advice, which led to the issuance of the quorum. Without giving it a chance to hear, militancy against the principles of natural justice and the actual amount had already been deposited, a new showcase by calculating the amount of extra taxes and fines instead of banning the judicial officer. Was required to issue notices. The Corrigendum Validity Adjusting Authority did not apply, nor did the Sales Authority, only section 33 (2) (CC) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, to recover proceedings and recover fines under an amended order. Section 34 of the Tax Act 1990 was not requested nor Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act 1990. Four months after the original order was issued in the showcase notice for the collection of the sales tax / surcharge, he issued an order for collection of additional tax and penalty and ordered, among others, the complainant. In an attempt to determine the tax liability officer, C.J. registration advocate from Mehrab Pur lawyer