HAMID ASHRAF versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 122 (5), 122 (5A) and 170 (4) establishing the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, (XXV of 2000); Section 2 (3) Amendment of the Fixed Taxes Government General Tax System Accepted the decision of the First Appellate Authority and did not file another appeal. And also appealed the first appellate authority's order, which resulted in the Department refusing to issue refunds instead of issuing Section 122 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. Introduced, and thus offset. Claiming a refund, financially or in part, the taxpayer has claimed that despite the provisions of Sections 122 (5) and 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, the Department of Justice was obliged to pay that amount Resolve a return claim first. In the proceedings initiated under Section 122 (5A) and Section 122 (5A) of the Revenue, the Department constituted itself according to the effect of the appeal, and then proceeded with these amendments, It is deemed necessary that the Department of Accuracy has increased the tax demand against the complainant. The Tax Ordinance, 2001, which could not be legally established on the basis of refusal of settlement of claims for refund, was, under the law, the priority of settling pending refund claims, and once the claims were settled. However, the second page may continue, provided that, under the law, it was justified in issuing a return in favor of delays and discretion, and the Commissioner's (Appeal) Order established the Office of the Implementation of Section 2 (3). ) Was synonymous with mismanagement. Federal Tax Ombuds Ordinance, 2000 Federal Tax Ombudsman Recommends Federal Board of Revenue Chief Commissioner
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
