Find a Lawyer

SECCO PAK (PVT.) LTD. versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 10 and 67 Section R549 (I) / 2008 dated 11 6 2008, Sections 3 and 7 of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000V of XXXV), Section 2 (3) (ii) Return of Input Tax Appellate Tribunal The withdrawal of the input tax held indefinitely was due to the taxpayers and payment should have been made by the department preventing the issuance of the due dues. Was granted; and the legal issues / issues arising out of the Appellate Tribunal's decision need to be resolved, before the issue of refund can be referred to the justification before the High Court against the Appellate Tribunal's order. Could not act as a restriction against payment of input tax return. The effect of the appeal on the appellate tribunal's order was that of delaying the issuance of taxpayer returns, which was equivalent to the delay in filing the return of the taxpayers. Instructing the Chief Commissioner to decide the return / compensation, according to the law, without prejudice to the outcome of the proceedings before the High Court. \ R \ n

Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2013

• IMPEX AGENCIES, KARACHI v. SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1331
• QUAID-E-AZAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAHAWALPUR v. SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1393
• LOTTE PAKISTAN (PTA) LTD. v. SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1545
• EAGLE ENGINEERING WORKS v. SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1702
• MUHAMMAD JAVED v. SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1967
• SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD v. WAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT 2013 PTD 2159
• SOHAIL AMIN v. SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 2226
• NASEEM PLASTIC HOUSE v. SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 2341

All Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan judgments of 2013 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Thatta lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes