2004 PLP 184 (PTD)
IJAZ AHMAD, EX-MANAGING DIRECTOR, CROWN ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE. Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2004 PLP 184 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | IJAZ AHMAD, EX-MANAGING DIRECTOR, CROWN ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE. 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 2004 PLP 184 (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 2004 PLP 184 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman bench comprising: Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 184 (PTD) (IJAZ AHMAD, EX-MANAGING DIRECTOR, CROWN ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE. Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Jamil Bhatti (D-CIT) for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.10(3)
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.96
Filing of complaint by the Ex Managing Director of the Company for refund
Complainant himself claimed to be an Ex-Managing Director which disentitled him to claim refund because refund was determined in the case of the "Company" and only the present management or its Managing Director could legally claim the refund and could file the complaint under S.10(3) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000
Law specifically provided that the `person aggrieved' was entitled to file the complaint-Person aggrieved' was the Company hence only principal officer of the Company was competent to move the complaint-- Present complainant was a stranger to the proceedings and not authorized to pursue the matter
Complaint was closed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman. Wasim Ismail (ITP) for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
S.10(3)
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.96
Filing of complaint by the Ex Managing Director of the Company for refund
Complainant himself claimed to be an Ex-Managing Director which disentitled him to claim refund because refund was determined in the case of the "Company" and only the present management or its Managing Director could legally claim the refund and could file the complaint under S.10(3) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000
Law specifically provided that the `person aggrieved' was entitled to file the complaint-Person aggrieved' was the Company hence only principal officer of the Company was competent to move the complaint-- Present complainant was a stranger to the proceedings and not authorized to pursue the matter
Complaint was closed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman. Wasim Ismail (ITP) for the Complainant. Muhammad Jamil Bhatti (D-CIT) for Respondent. This complaint has been filed alleging that the refund for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1992-93 aggregating Rs.760,344 has not been worked out and issued despite order dated 20-5-1996 by the Appellate Tribunal.
2. The facts leading to the complaint are that assessments for the years 1988-89 to 1992-93 reached finality when consolidated order dated 20-5-1996 was passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal in fact under section 135 is alleged to have been delayed till 20-11-2001 for almost six years still the refund is being withheld. Therefore, complainant's claim for refund as well as compensation for delay in payment of refund.
3. Respondents have forwarded R-CIT, Lahore parawise comments which convey that the complainant, Mr. Ijaz Ahmed is no longer the Managing Director of the Company and, therefore, the complaint filed by him is not competent for admission. Moreover, the refund has since been adjusted, with the knowledge and consent of the Authorized Representative of the Company, against demand created under section 52 of the repealed Ordinance.
4. A scrutiny of the complaint shows that Mr. Ijaz Ahmad has himself claimed to be an Ex-Managing Director. This clearly disentitles him to claim the refund, because the refund, if any, was determined in the case of "Crown Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd." and it is only the present Management or its Managing Director who can legally claim the refund and could file the complaint under subsection (3) of section 10 of FTO Ordinance. This provision of law specifically lays down that the `person aggrieved' is entitled to file the complaint. The `person aggrieved' is the Company hence only principal officer of the Company (by whatever designation known) is competent to move the complaint. The present complainant, Mr. Ijaz Ahmad, is obviously a stranger to the proceedings and therefore, not authorized to pursue the matter. The complaint is, therefore, filed and the case is closed. C.M.A./879/FTO Complaint filed.