Sections 9 and 10 (3) Complaint regarding the delay in filing a refund claim after receiving appeal from the appellate tribunal for the latest decision on the matter, despite the direction of the appellate tribunal of the department, was a complaint that the section. The complaint was not filed within the time limit provided under 10 (3). With the establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman's Ordinance, the 2000 Welding Department slept for over three-and-a-half years until the current complaint was filed, and the department first noticed the complainant three years after the recent arrest of the case. issued. Such negligence became even more serious in view of the fact that the complainant had obtained a complete record of the department two years ago, in the context of which section 10 (3). The complaint was banned according to the range provided under. Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 was subjected to misunderstanding as a compliant individual following the tribunal's instruction through repeated reminders and on the date of the last reminder sent by the complainant. , The Federal Tax Ombudsman has recommended to the Federal Board of Revenue to decide the matter. Within 21 days, and within 15 days thereafter, if established after the decision, issue a return, in accordance with the law, and then report compliance within 15 days. \ R \ n
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2014
