SANA TRADERS, ISLAMABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 10, 66 and 67 Sales Tax Rules, 2006, R: 28 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Sections 2 (3), 9 and 10 Section RO 394 (I) / 2009, 21-29, 2009 Office establishment. In rejecting the denied claim, the complainant exported a zero rating during the tax period in July and October 2008 and claimed input adjustment / refund for the month of July 2008 and the sales tax department for the month of October 2006. Informed the complainant that there was a return claim in the month of July. Under this process, while the 120-month period that was received in the month of October 2008 was periodically withheld under R28 of the Cell Tax Rules 2006, the complainant applied for a late condolence, But the sales tax authority applied, rather than just the deadline. Issued a showcase notice, 26 days to dismiss this claim, despite the fact that sales tax authorities have the necessary qualifications to waive a one-year delay in accordance with Section RO 394 (I) / 2009. Claim was handled seriously by the sales tax authority first, advising the complainant to file a delayed condolence petition and then issuing a show cause notice to dismiss the claim due to time constraints. ? Unlike buyers and suppliers, sales tax filing non-certification, both of which were available for joint certification, spoke of the high fortune of the authorities in which the error stated under section 2 (3) or All such movements of the Commission have been constituted. I) and (II) the 2000 recommendations of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance Office were made through the Ombudsman
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
