Find a Lawyer

GADOON TEXTILE MILLS LTD. versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 80 (1) and 25 (1) of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV 2000V), Sections 2 (3) and 9 (2) (b) of the Finance Act (IV of 2007), presenting the limits of duty The speculative review was issued by the complainant, with the post-dated check assuming that if it is proved that the customs value is not a declared value under section 25 (1) of the Customs Act 1969, the check will be inquired. Otherwise they will be returned to the company. The check was neither encasted nor issued to the complainant; the company requested the department to return such postdate check or to determine the correct value of the imported goods. The order should be passed so that the matter was adjourned to determine the value of the transaction and no order was passed under section 80. (1) The Complaint, Period Complaint of the Customs Act, 1969, asserts that since the fixed period provided under Section 80 (2) of the Customs Act, 1969 has expired, the Price Income Final declared by the Complainant Company And it was the legal responsibility of this department to issue a check on the post date. Instead of returning this check, the department issued a notice to declare the postdated check illegal, which was illegal and the department was concerned that the complainant was concerned about revoking the postdated check. Had responded to his request letter and demanded that the hearing be adjourned. It proved that the Department considered that the letter was timely, not valid, only after the expiry of the statutory period provided in section 81 (2) of the Customs Act 1969 Notice was issued and this law criminal advocate from Machh lawyer