Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 25 2013 SLD 25 2013 PTD 433
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complaint No. 438/KHI/CUST(164)/1383 of 2012, decision dated: 19th October,2012
DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
M. Nadir Khan, Advisor Dealing Officer. Ahmed Danish, Authorized Representative. Muhammad Qasim Khokar, DC and Ali Shah, AC Departmental

Messrs ALI SHAN ENTERPRISES, LAHORE

VS

SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000

Section: 10,10(3),9,2(3)

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 81

(a) Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---S. 10(3)---Complainant---Condonation of delay---Special circum-stance---Theft of the pay order from; the custody of customs department; its encashment by another person; inaction by department; delay and negligence of the Department in circumstances, were certainly special circumstances justifying entertaining of the complaint in the interest of justice---Delay was condoned by the Federal Tax Ombudsman. (b) Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)--- ----S.9---Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Objection about matter being sub-judice before the Special Judge was found to be without any substance as no matter about claim of the complainant for release/refund of pay order was sub-judice before any court, forum or authority---Objection was overruled by the Federal Tax Ombudsman. (c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S.81---Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Provisional determination of liability---Goods were released provisionally on payment of duty and taxes on declared value---Differential amount was secured through pay order which was required to be released on final determination of value and payment of due amount of duty and taxes---Despite payment of duty and taxes as per final assessment the security/pay order was not released as it was allegedly stolen from the custody of the Department and encashed with the connivance of the officials of the Department---Pay order was in the name of Collector and it could have been credited only to the official/Government account---Registration of First Information Report against theft of the pay order and a departmental inquiry were not enough---Officials involved in the theft, after being suspended for a short term, had been re-instated---No action had been taken for the recovery of the amount of pay order illegally en-cashed---Complainant was entitled to the release of pay order, after payment of due duty and taxes---Department was under legal obligation to return the pay order or refund the amount---Complainant could…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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