HASHIM SABIR RAJA versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
R65 (ii) Contract Act (IX of 1872), Article 20 Establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Sections 2 (3) (i) (B) and 10 (4) Auction At that time, during the auction, the vehicle was presented as the Mercedes-Benz model of 1998 and in the delivery order issued by the auctioneer in favor of the buyer, the vehicle was also indicated to be the 1998 model. ? The inspection revealed that the vehicle had complained of a 1992 model. The auction should be canceled because it was directed by the department to purchase the vehicle on the wrong information available and the auction equipment was auctioned by the auction, \ on the same basis, the department still has no valid goods. Details were required to be provided. Rule 65 (i) of the Customs Rules, 2001, Section 20 of the Contract Act, 1872 provided the prospective buyer provided that the agreement was invalid where both parties were in fact wrong. Notwithstanding the complaint, regardless of the department's misconduct, the complainant, due to incorrect information provided by the department, suffered an innocent buyer's loss, where there was a mistake, the remedy was to dispose of the complaint. The department's resistance was a misconduct that was clearly and unfairly the federal tax ombudsman's recommendation to the Federal Board of Revenue to cancel the auction and return the auction full amount after the vehicle was recovered. Of \ r \ n
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2012
