Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 254 2008 SLD 254 2008 PTD 1719
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complaint No.1095-L of 2005, decision dated: 24-10-2005
, JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Muhammad Akbar (Advisor) Dealing Officer AND Muhammad Ashraf, Consultant, for the Complainant AND Munir Sarwar D.C. Sales Tax, Lahore, for
Respondents

Messrs M.N.H. EXPORTS

VS

SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000

Section: 9(2)(a)

Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---S.9(2)(a)---Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Sales Tax appeal against Collector (Appeals)' order was filed and complaint in Federal Tax Ombudsman's Secretariat too was filed on the same day but earlier in time during the day---Validity---Admittedly appeal was filed before Appellate Tribunal---Fact was that Deputy Collector and the Collector (Appeals) decided the complainant's case after following the due process of law---No `maladministration' was observed---Federal Tax Ombudsman advised that the complainant should pursue its appeal pending before the appellate Tribunal, which was competent to sort out both points of law and fact---Complaint was disposed of accordingly by the Federal Tax Ombudsman. 1997 SCMR 503 ref. DECISION/FINDINGS JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, (FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN).-Facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased textile fabrics from Messrs Aysha Textiles, a person registered with the Sales Tax Department, during the month of June 2003 involving sales tax of Rs.537210. Subsequently, it exported ready-made garments and claimed sales tax refund. The concerned D.C. issued show-cause notice dated 24-3-2004 to the complainant for rejection of sales tax refund due to some suspicion about the supplier. The complainant contested the charges but the D.C., Sales Tax (Refund) without going into the merits of the case or considering the arguments put forth by the complainant rejected the claim and imposed penalty of 30% of the rejected amount. Against that order, the complainant appealed before Collector (Appeals). The Collector upheld the order passed by the D.C. The impugned Order-in-Appeal based on `maladministration' was liable to be set aside on the grounds that the complainant had made purchases from Messrs Ayesha Textiles when the said unit was not suspended/ blacklisted nor was it declared a negative unit. Proviso to section 21(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, conferring blacklisting powers on the Collector, was added in the Sales Tax Act on 1-7-2003. As such, inclusion of the supplier's name in the list of suspicious…
🔒
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