DR. R.A. SIYAL, ISLAMABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Second Schedule, Part III, Total (2) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 24 (1) Taxpayer Deputy Director General (Science), National Institute of Sciences and Technical Education was posted as a teacher trainer, it has 20% Received Basic Education Instruction Allowance. He was entitled to a 75% tax deduction because the full-time faculty and researcher's department refused to refund the tax deduction on the basis that the complainant was appointed deputy director general (science), who was an executive officer. ? That he was on guard duty. That he was not entitled to a 75% tax rebate. That it did not provide any evidence of a tax deduction and the claim was timely barred because a refund request was not filed as per the time limit. The justification for being a full-time teacher was not denied by any written order. On the record, substantial evidence of tax deduction was filed in the form of salaries of salaries. Due to the limitation and the refund claim cannot be denied, according to the law no person shall be deprived of his property. The department did not take reasonable action to deny the complainant a claim for refund of the complainant's entertainment refusal. The tax rebate 75 adm-based refund claim was unfair, unfair and disregarded and equated to mismanagement The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue be directed to the Chief Commissioner, in accordance with the law, of the amount. Returns are expected to be issued within 15 days. General Chat Chat Lounge r \ n
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2012
