MIA CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Selection of Section 177 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000VXV), Sections 2 (3), 9 and 10 of the Office \ Comprehensive Audit (covering sales tax and federal excise matters) of the nominated letter. Complaint was filed against the Commissioner who stated that his case was selected for a Comprehensive Audit and the complainant's view was that the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sales Tax Act 1990 or the Federal Excise Act, 2005 There was no provision for a comprehensive audit of. The deputation of the department representative was that the Commissioner was authorized under section 177 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 to select any matter for audit under his jurisdictional commissioner, of course Section 177 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. Was eligible under Issue notice for audit, but using this power, they could not apply the clause to other laws, both sales tax and federal excise laws being the independent section for audit proceedings. Their results were different and they could not be obliged to provide the Commissioner's Income Tax Law Action to simultaneously issue a Notice of Comprehensive Audit for Sales Tax and Federal Excise Cases and to file a Complainant's Income. Tax matters were like being without authority. Recommended for withdrawal of notices issued for conducting a comprehensive audit audit within 15 days in the case of the complainant within 15 days of the establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, section 2 (3) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance. Done. And report compliance within 5 days thereafter \ r \ n
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2012
