TELECOM ENGINEERING AND CONSULTANCY HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, Section 3 (XXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) Taxpayers obtained by providing and presenting tax advisory consulting services asserted that the Assistant Commissioner Deliberately and knowingly issued notice due to this. Sales tax on providing services and consulting services that was not covered by the Sales Tax Act of 1990. Detailed delivery of receipt patterns was provided for the delivery of consulting services, but the Assistant Commissioner requested no additional information, nor did it create a serious and arbitrary demand to meet the Federal Board of Revenue's revenue targets. Deleted an answer without providing the appropriate hearing opportunity. Taxpayers who prepared the relevant record requested that department representatives can check the records before proceeding to the argument. After thorough examination of the accuracy record, the department representative was actually willing to correct the order. , Provided the photocopy of the delivery of consultation services to the complainant is actually the order. Irrational, irresponsible, and passed without due care and proper diligence, which equates to corruption The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends that the Federal Board of Revenue (i) instruct the relevant commissioner to request the record. And rectify the unpredictable order. Under Section 45A of the Sales Tax Act 1990, iginal (ii) through the Sales Tax General Order directs that the declaration in the Income Tax Papers be made the basis for the assessment of the sales tax unless the person registered is hearing.
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
