D.S. MOTORS versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
On the issuance of Section 25 and 25D Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000V), sections 2, 9 and 10, the Complainant prohibits the issuance of diagnostic advice under Section 25 (9) of the Customs Act 1969 The advice was issued in violation of the provisions of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969. The complainant's representative claimed that the complainant was the original appliance maker Motorcycle Manufacturers of the same brand of motorcycles were manufactured by several companies across the country, but the price advice was issued only to Hyderabad Calcutta, The department, which reflects on Hyderabad's discrimination with the manufacturers, did not dispute the fact that the aforementioned brands of motorcycles are being manufactured all over the country by representatives of the department for the issuance of antique pricing order for the department motorcycle. Has already taken steps. Parts, reflecting that Dep Art itself was in the mind that pricing advice for Hyderabad collectors was illegal and that having a uniform policy across the country, a price order must be imposed on all manufacturers because nationwide. Motorcycles were being developed, so the department could not. In the Federal Board of Revenue, manufacturers in Hyderabad have to deal with the rest of the motorcycle manufacturers of the same brand. And the issuance of pricing decisions, in accordance with the law, should be made in connection with the evaluation of similar goods in other collateral. Director Valuation, in accordance with the law about the motorcycle parts of the brand, to accelerate the launch of the valuation roll. And compliance will be reported within 30 days
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
