MUHAMMAD TUFAIL versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
A show cause notice was issued to the complainant against an order passed under section A ((j) jurisdiction) so that the claimed input tax is not acceptable as it is based on invoices issued by black people. And the refund was issued for the period of February 2004 to July 2005 was actually a recoverable order according to which the Collector (Appeal) filed the Complainant and Input Tax for the period of February 2004 to June 2005. Appeal allowed, while the July 2005 claim was dismissed, the appellate tribunal decided on the complainant's appeal The appellate tribunal upheld its decision. The matter was remanded to the Department for the month of 2005, noting that the previous blacklisting of the supplying units was not applicable in the law.In the case of the complainant, the period was February 2004. As of July 2005, When the supplier's unit was blacklisted in 2007 after more than two or three years, the order was not made applicable retrospectively, the appellate tribunal did not approve of the department's behavior in its decision and only for the period of July 2005. It was held that the appellate tribunal dismissed the complainant's appeal against the Collector's appeal. Distorted / distorted, which is similar to the mismanagement under section 2 (3) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance Office of Establishment, section 2000, the Federal Board of Revenue should be directed to the Commissioner to make provisions of Section 45A (4). Keep the order original by asking. Sales Tax Act, 1990; enforcement of appellate tribunal order according to letter and spirit; to CIR to specify that it is required to establish section 13 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2012
