ART WEAVERS, ATTOCK versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Section 36 Refund Rules, 2002, R7 (3) Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 v. XXV), Sections 2 (3), 8, 9, 10 and 11 Recovery of Claim Claims Eight complaints were filed. Originally due to unlawful issuance of showcase notices and orders without reference to the relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act 1990. Time bar for excessive delay showcase notice. And double taxation was one of the major issues involved in the complaint. Whether the Federal Tax Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the matter. Whether the showcase notice was timely banned and banned in the eyes of the law. Whether the return claim decision was delayed because of the serious allegations set forth in Sections 2 (3) (i) (a) (b) and (ii) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, the establishment of the Federal Tax Office. In the complaint. The Ombudsman had the jurisdiction to file a deliberate refund against a fraudulent / invoice submission, not based on proper inquiry / audit such as Refund Rules, 2002 R3 (3). ), There is no justification for the complainant to make a deliberate accusation. Such an inquiry was most necessary because Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 violated two categories - deliberately. Complaints filed against tax and inadvertent facts reveal gross incompetence by tax officials of merit, coercion, outrage and irrational behavior. Sorry. , Which defined corruption as defined in Section 2 (3) (i) (a) and (b) and (ii) of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance Office. Because of this, 000 000 Recommend Show recommendations were made to the Federal Board of Revenue. Put the orders aside and actually
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
