PACK-N-MOVE versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 32, 32A and 156 (1) (14) (14A) (45) constitute the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), section 2 (3) (i), 9 and 10 wrong Enforcement of Declaration and Financial Fraud The complainant / Customs Clearing and Forwarding Agent had complained that the Additional Collector had submitted the notice without cause and did not provide the opportunity for a hearing on it through original party orders. , Imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on which the importer filed three GDs by the complainant, who was the importer's clearing agent, on the basis of exemption certificate, duty and tax, Eat, proved wrong on investigation and notices were issued to the importer for fraudulent reasons only the importer was charged and the complainant was not accused of any crime other than that the complainant was also given to the importer. Responding to the showcase notice was not demanded when the complainant was not made a party and his voice was not given. O Submit the reply, his decision was against the principles of justice. The orders actually contained fake documents. No role played by the complainant in the preparation was specified but anything to show It was not on record that the complainant had been taken advantage of. 1) (14) (14A) and (45) of the Customs Act, 1969, was inappropriate, unfair and in violation of the law, rules and regulations and without giving the complainant an opportunity to be heard and charged with the crime. Without explaining its role. A binding commitment is the equivalent of imposing fines / penalties such as the Federal Tax Ombudsman's Ordinance Office, 2000
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
