ADMJEE ENTERPRISES, KARACHI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Section 35, 40 and 41 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Claims for waiver / return of duty on sections 2 (3), 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16. However, the complainant's complaint was that his 84 exemption claims / duty drop claims related to the year 2007 and 2008 were stopped by the department for no good reason or justification; nothing was on record to show that the complaint Prior to filing, any objection memo or document or call notice was issued to the claimant. Upon receipt of the complainant's notice, the department issued notices to the complainant to submit a notice of delay in filing, indicating that it was a failed attempt to excuse the delay in processing the claim, after which All pending claims, except 14, were cleared, without receiving any documentation from the complainant, which, in the circumstances, was withheld without any justifiable and curable cause, which not only equaled corruption, but They also had to contend that federal taxes attracting proceedings under Sections 12 and 16 of the Federal Ombudsman's Ordinance Htsb recommendations fiance, Federal Board of Revenue under the 2000 recommendations were directed to the collector to resolve claims pending a complaint under the law exemption. Within 15 days; Determine the responsibility of failing to comply with the Federal Tax Ombudsman's findings / recommendations, and the relevant authorities are instructed to indicate that the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 established office 12/12. Why not take action against them. And within 30 days of compliance reporting \ r \ n
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
