2008 PLP 1349 (PTD)
Messrs AKRAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1349 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Munir A. Shaikh, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | Messrs AKRAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1349 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1349 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman bench comprising: Justice (Retd.) Munir A. Shaikh, Federal Tax Ombudsman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1349 (PTD) (Messrs AKRAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Javed, DC Customs, Karachi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.9
Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman
High Court had directed to recover the principal amount plus surcharge only and not further surcharge on the total amount so becoming due
Complainant/assessee raised question in a review application that even the surcharge could not legally be recovered in accordance with the law
No direction could be made to the Revenue Division to act contrary to the judgment of High Court
Complainant/assessee may seek any remedy against the charging of surcharge if available under the law
Review application was disposed of as being not maintainable as no case of mistake apparent on the face of record in the decision had been made out. Sardar Qasim Ahmad Ali for the Complainant. FIDINGS/DECISION
Judgment & Decree
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)
S.9
Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman
High Court had directed to recover the principal amount plus surcharge only and not further surcharge on the total amount so becoming due
Complainant/assessee raised question in a review application that even the surcharge could not legally be recovered in accordance with the law
No direction could be made to the Revenue Division to act contrary to the judgment of High Court
Complainant/assessee may seek any remedy against the charging of surcharge if available under the law
Review application was disposed of as being not maintainable as no case of mistake apparent on the face of record in the decision had been made out. Sardar Qasim Ahmad Ali for the Complainant. Irfan Javed, DC Customs, Karachi for Respondent. FIDINGS/DECISION JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN.
The review of the decision dated 19-7-2005 passed in Complaint No.538-L of 2005 has been sought through this application by the complainant to the extent of the recovery of surcharge over the principal amount due. I have gone through the said decision and in particular paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof. Though the department was of the view that it could charge not only the surcharge but further surcharge over the amount becoming due after adding the amount of surcharge on the principal amount but the judgment of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.652 of 2002 filed by the complainant was relied upon in support of this contention. The High Court in the said judgment had categorically held that the complainant was liable to pay surcharge over the principal amount. While interpreting the said judgment it was held that the total amount could not further be made liable for surcharge and the department was directed to recover the principal amount plus surcharge only and not further surcharge on the total amount so becoming due. So far as the question raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that even the surcharge could not legally be recovered, in my view remedy should be sought in accordance with the law. So far as this office is concerned no direction can be made to the Revenue Division to act contrary to the judgment of the High Court.
2. With the above observation that the complainant may seek any remedy against the charging of surcharge if available under the law, this application is hereby disposed of as being not maintainable as no case of mistake apparent on the face of record in the decision dated 19-7-2005 has been made out. C.M.A./7/FTO Order accordingly.