Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 216 and 168 Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) shall not compensate for any loss or injury other than evidence of negligent or willful act, release of a vehicle complaint It is alleged that during the custody of the vehicle, such as suspension parts, gear boxes, clutches, tires, batteries, toolboxes, etc. were changed / replaced and damaged by complaints of repair of documents including registration books, replacement of parts, tires etc. Had to be removed by the department. Extreme damages for acts such as detention, confiscation of vehicles, execution of court orders, can be termed illegal, invalid and unlawful. He directed that he be compensated for the financial loss incurred and appropriate actions could be initiated against him. On the allegations of corruption, the litigants had to prove to the department that there was a loss or damage and that the complainant, who had done this deliberately, could file his claim with the department, prove his case. And can get a judgment on merit according to the provisions of the law under which the appeals filed by the department against the High Court order are pending and all this is a decision, it was not possible for the federal tax. The Ombudsman should provide any information about the legal status of the department or any other action to seize / detain vehicles, however deliberately to free the buses, despite allegations of corruption by High Court orders and staff In relation to the delay, the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends that the Central Board of Revenue consider the DG (Inquiry) advocate from Rawat lawyer