Messrs MUMTAZ GOODS TRANSPORT, SUKKUR VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2007 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 787 (2006)

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---

----S. 122(5A)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Amendment of assessments---Review of decision---Complainant contended that clarification issued by the Central Board of Revenue on which reliance was placed by the Revenue Division on the comments submitted in the complaint were not the law as such were not binding on the Adjudication Officer who was bound to decide the case judiciously, independently and fairly in accordance with law---Validity---Held, in the notice issued under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 no mention had been made about such instructions issued by Central Board of Revenue---Mere reliance of such instructions in comments would not in any manner affect the legality of the said notice as they were not made the basis for the issuance of the same---Adjudication Officer shall decide the case judiciously, uninfluenced by the said clarifications mentioned in the comments filed in the complaint for, according to law no such clarifications or instructions were binding on the Authorities who were to decide the cases judiciously---Review application was disposed of by the Federal Tax Ombudsman with the observation that complainant was at liberty to raise all their pleas and points in reply to the notice issued by the Adjudicating Officer who shall after considering the said decisions and' other case-law if produced by the complainant would proceed to decide the case judiciously, independently, fairly in accordance with law.

Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for the Complainant.

Hakim Ali Soomro, Law Officer for Respondent.

FINDINGS DECISION

JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN.---Review of decision, dated 11-9-2006 made in Complaint No.734-K/2006 has been sought.

2. Learned counsel for the complainant says that clarification allegedly issued by the C.B.R. on which reliance was placed by the Revenue Division in the comments submitted in the complaint were not the law as such were not binding on the Adjudication Officer who is bound to decide the case judiciously, independently and fairly in accordance with law.

3. In the notice issued under section 122(5A) no mention has been made about these instructions allegedly issued by the C.B.R.. Merely reliance of such instructions in the comments would not in any manner affect the legality of the said notice as they were not made the basis for the issuance of the same. It may also be clarified that the Adjudicating Officer who has issued the notice after submission of reply by the complainant in which all the legal and factual aspects of the case may be raised after considering them shall decide the case judiciously, uninfluenced by the said clarifications mentioned in the comments filed in the complaint for according to law no such clarifications or instructions are binding on the authorities who are to decide the case judiciously as in the present one.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the decision made in Complaint Nos. 94,95,96,97 and 98/2006 decided on 10-4-2006 it has already been held by this office that the services rendered by the complainant did not fall within the tax regime. The complainant is at liberty to raise all these pleas and points in reply to the notice issued by the Adjudicating Officer who shall after considering the said decisions and other case-law if produced by the complainant proceed to decide the case judiciously, independently, fairly in accordance with law.

5. With the above observation this review application is disposed of.

C.M.A./216/FTOOrder accordingly.