NASEEM PLASTIC HOUSE versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
The Appellate Tribunal's suspension of sales tax registration, sections 47, 46 and 21, dismissed the suspension order and left the appellate tribunal to issue legal notice to the parties after proceeding with the law, if there was sufficient evidence. So the taxpayer was involved in tax fraud and adjusted the input / output on the fake invoices, the taxpayer applied to issue an order to restore the registration but to no avail, the Revenue claimed that the Federal Tax Ombudsman Has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter, which is sub judice. On the date of receipt of the complaint before a competent jurisdiction or tribunal or the Federal Board of Revenue or Authority. And since the department filed a reference before the High Court, the appellate tribunal's order was to stay pending the decision of the High Court taxpayer that the department did not obtain any stay, order or suspension order form from the High Court. had gone. Nor was there any provision for automatic stay during the hearing of a case before a court of competent jurisdiction in any act. And the appellate tribunal's order prevented this field, and the department had no choice but to restore registration. The Property Federal Tax Ombudsman made a mistake or the Tax Employees Commission misunderstood that the Federal Tax Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to dismiss the current complaint. The Tax Ombudsman may direct the department to comply with the appeals orders, where no stay or suspension order was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction to file an appeal in a higher forum.
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2013
