IMDAD HUSSAIN versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Section 18 Section RO 506 (1) / 1988 Dated 26 6 1988 Section RO 577 (1) / 2006 Directive 5 6 2006 Section RO 576 (1) / 2006 Directive 5 6 2006 Assessment of Duty Duty and Taxes for Goods Initially, the sale of such imported duty and tax duty vehicles was referred to the customs customer for duty and tax assessment and the NOC was authorized by the State Department of Vehicles for sale. The issuance of CAG was estimated and the NOC was issued after tax on 5th January 2007, pending the sale of deferred tax and tax payment, the vehicle was forfeited, the Appellate Tribunal Approved the redemption penalty and ordered its release on payment of taxable duty / tax through the decision of 142 2010 while determining the smallest amount of duty and tax, customs cost, duty / tax comparison 21 2010 On the basis of the assessment done on 5 assessment 9 2007 instead of the present assessment on 12, 2010, the complainant claimed that the duty and tax were already assessed. And was paid based on the value set by Customs for the sale in the local market, ie, in the year 5 of 2007 and only because of the category change and the level of discount due to the question involved a duty and tax There was a small diagnosis. Fake sales authorization in the name of the diplomat, either there was no justification for confiscating the vehicle or changing the valuation date from 5 7 2009, when the vehicle was sold in the local market, on 21 12 2010, with no There was no relationship. Except that the complainant applied for the release of the vehicle that day following the appellate tribunal's decision. And this application has an important date for evaluating value
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
