| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 228 2008 SLD 228 2008 PTD 89 |
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complaint No. C-675-K of 2007, decision dated: 1st August, 2007
, JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Dr. Farogh Naseem, Messrs Asif Haroon and Samiullah for Petitioners AND Chartered Accountants for the Complainant AND Badar-ud-Din Ahmed Qureshi, Deputy Collector, Sales Tax for
Respondent
Complaint No. C-675-K of 2007, decision dated: 1st August, 2007
, JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Dr. Farogh Naseem, Messrs Asif Haroon and Samiullah for Petitioners AND Chartered Accountants for the Complainant AND Badar-ud-Din Ahmed Qureshi, Deputy Collector, Sales Tax for
Respondent
Messrs GLAXO SMITH KLINE PAKISTAN LIMITED through Messrs Muhammad Naseem & Company
VS
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 7,9
Law: Sales Tax Rules, 2006
Section: 19,23
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 189
Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000
Section: 9(2)(b)
(a) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---S.9(2)(b)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) Ss. 7 & 9---Sales Tax Rules, 2006, Rr. 19 & 23---Complaint---Jurisdiction of Federal Ombudsman---Scope---Collector of Sales Tax in her written report had raised objection regarding jurisdiction of office of Ombudsman on the ground that since the issue involved interpretation of law, rules and regulations, Ombudsman office had no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint in view of provisions of S.9(2)(b) of Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000---Validity---Said objection was invalid because whenever maladministration was alleged independent of the controversy in the matter, there would be no bar to jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman to look into the allegation of maladministration---Wherever maladministration was alleged and proved, then Federal Tax Ombudsman could give recommendations and findings which could even affect the merits of case---Question involved in the present complaint did not require any interpretation of law and rules, but it was alleged that the Department was refusing to follow the legal principle settled by the High Court---Such conduct being contrary to law, tantamount maladministration which office of Ombudsman was competent to investigate or inquire into. Mayfair Spinning Mills v. Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore PTCL 2002 CL 115 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art.189---Decision of Supreme Court, binding force of---Only that decision of the Supreme Court would be binding which would decide a question of law or was based upon a principle of law or enunciated a principle of law---Decision should be final and after that nothing should remain pending before Supreme Court regarding that point---None of the conditions enumerated in Art.189 of the Constitution being applicable to the order of the Supreme Court, order suspending the operation of the of the High Court which was not covered by Art.189 of the Constitution, was not binding on the courts of Pakistan, except on the parties in that case. DECISION/FINDINGS JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A.…
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