| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 192 2013 SLD 192 (2013) 108 TAX 164 2013 PTD 2159 |
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Review Application No.12/2012, decision dated: 10-7-2013 inComplaint No. 286/LHR/IT(240)/577/2011
DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor, for the Dealing Officer, Waheed Shahzad Butt, Advocate, for the Authorized Representative.Asrar Rauf, Senior Member, FBR, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Chief ITP, FBR, Aftab Ahmed, then Chief ITP, FBR, Taj Hamid, Secretary IR (Bud
Review Application No.12/2012, decision dated: 10-7-2013 inComplaint No. 286/LHR/IT(240)/577/2011
DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor, for the Dealing Officer, Waheed Shahzad Butt, Advocate, for the Authorized Representative.Asrar Rauf, Senior Member, FBR, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Chief ITP, FBR, Aftab Ahmed, then Chief ITP, FBR, Taj Hamid, Secretary IR (Bud
SECRETARIAT, REGIONAL OFFICE, LAHORE SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABADvsWAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT, ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000
Section: 9,9(1)
(a) Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---S. 9(1)---Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Scope---"Public interest"---Suo motu notice in public interest by ombudsman---Necessity of complaint---Objection of the Department that "Federal Tax Ombudsman could only assume jurisdiction if there was an aggrieved party", was misconceived---Allegations of systemic maladministration were levelled against the functionaries of Federal Board of Revenue and the Federal Tax Ombudsman took suo motu notice in public interest, under S.9(1) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000---Investigation of the nature did not necessitate a complainant. (b) Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)--- ----S. 2(3)---Maladministration---Department contended that in the absence of mens rea in the conduct of functionaries of Federal Board of Revenue, no disciplinary action was warranted against them---Validity---Mens rea in proceedings before the Federal Tax Ombudsman was determined by the attendant circumstances on the basis of balance of probability and not on the basis of requirement of criminal law beyond reasonable doubt---Chain of transactions which could result in loss of billions of rupees to the exchequer and a corresponding gain to the service provider corporations could not be brushed aside as a bona fide error of . (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 153 (1)(b), 153(6)(iii), 113 & 206---FBR Circular No.6 of 2009 dated 18-8-2009---FBR Circular C.No.196 WHT/2009 dated 4-7-2009---FBR Circular No.3 of 2009 dated 17-7-2009---S.R.O. 1003(I)/2001 dated 31-10-2011---Payments for goods, services and contracts---Tax on services---Minimum tax for service sector, corporate as well as non-corporate---Minimum tax under Ss.153(1)(b)/153(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and after Finance Act, 2001, Ss.153(1)(b)/153(3)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was applicable in cases of all service sector taxpayers, corporate as well as non corporate---FBR Circular No.6 of 2009 dated 18-8-2009 was based on wrong and possibly motivated view…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492