| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1012 2016 SLD 1012 2016 PTD 1443 |
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Review Applications Nos. 3 and 5 of 2016 in Complaint No.53/ISD/ IT(39)/648/2015, decided on 15th April, 2016.
ABDUR RAUF CHAUDHRY, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Muhammad Munir Qureshi Advisor Dealing Officer.Hassan Kamran Bashir for Authorized Representative.Shahid ul Hassan Chatha, Director I & I - IR/DR Amir Abbas Khan, Addl. Director, I & I, IR/DR for Departmental Representative.
Review Applications Nos. 3 and 5 of 2016 in Complaint No.53/ISD/ IT(39)/648/2015, decided on 15th April, 2016.
ABDUR RAUF CHAUDHRY, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Muhammad Munir Qureshi Advisor Dealing Officer.Hassan Kamran Bashir for Authorized Representative.Shahid ul Hassan Chatha, Director I & I - IR/DR Amir Abbas Khan, Addl. Director, I & I, IR/DR for Departmental Representative.
DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABADVSMASTER TILES AND CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD. G.T. ROAD GUJRANWALA and 3 others
Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000
Section: 9,13,14(8)
(a) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)-----Ss. 14(8), 13 & 9----Review of findings of Federal Tax Ombudsman---Scope----Department, by way of review of impugned order, sought expunction of remarks made by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in the impugned order, on the ground that the said remarks were contradictory, as the Federal Tax Ombudsman had observed that Departmental maladministration was not evident, yet the impugned remarks conflicted with the said finding and a direction to the Chairman FBR in the impugned order to conduct an enquiry into the matter was also not tenable---Validity----In the impugned order, which was under review, the Federal Tax Ombudsman by way of abundant caution had left door open to be able to take cognizance of any Departmental wrongdoing that may come to light at any later stage and should the Department be found later to be lacking in internal check and balance, it ought to be possible to address said deficiency---Such corrective action was clearly contingent upon conclusive identification of persons responsible for alleged leakage of confidential information, which was the matter under consideration in the complaint, and for which there was no oversight mechanism---Fact that complainant might be trying to exploit said remarks of the Federal Tax Ombudsman in the complainant's review petition, was not sufficient justification to warrant their expunction---Present review petition did not establish any readily discernable defect in impugned order that might warrant remedial action in review----Review was rejected, in circumstances. 2012 SCMR 123; 2007 CLC 124; 2009 YLR 1508; 2011 YLR 2452; 2012 YLR 1580; 2013 MLD 1759; 2006 CLD 79; Eli Lily 2009 PTD 1392; 2013 PLC 934 (SC (AJK)); 1996 MLD 2002 (SC (AJ&K)); 1969 SCMR 427 and 2014 SCMR 1858 ref. (b) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)--- ----S. 14(8)----Scope of review of findings of Federal Tax Ombudsman under S. 14 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000----Concreted effort to re-argue the entire case and introduction of new issues which were not raised in the original…