GERRY DNATA (PVT.) LTD. versus SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 19 and 33 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance Office (2000 XXV), section 2 (3), 9, 10 and 11 exemption and refund claims for 1998 mill handling of ground handling equipment. The complainant claimed immunity, which was denied on the ground. The goods were imported in a second-hand state, which was not allowed. The appellate tribunal decided the case in favor of the complainant's order in the appeal, but was told that the decision by customs, despite a two-year interval. Was not returned. Despite numerous requests by the complainant authorities, instead of taking effective action, the matter was dealt with in an ineffective and irresponsible manner and the time limit was violated, which constituted the mill administration, the complainant's non-refundable The claim was only postponed to the desired extent. The Sales Tax Authority case provided a clear example of the overall volatility on the issue of refund verification and input adjustment. The part of the Customs and Sales Tax Authorities that constituted the mill management's recommendations, the Federal Board of Revenue was directed to certify the RTO within 7 days, even if the complainant had no input in the matter. Whether or not adjustments are made. In the light of the appellate tribunal's decision on the input adjustment, the customs of the air freight unit to decide the case; the responsibility of not implementing the appellate tribunal's decision and the customs and sales tax responsible for the revenue administration The executives took action under the disciplinary rules. The deputy collector is responsible for issuing unreasonable call notices to the customs resulting in doubt.
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
