BR100 Increased By (0.01%)
BR30 Increased By (0.53%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.28%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.29%)
AGHA 6.35 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.47%)
BECO 4.39 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.81%)
BML 62.50 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.08%)
BOP 31.47 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (0.77%)
CNERGY 11.70 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.95%)
CSIL 5.92 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (3.5%)
FCCL 61.60 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.1%)
FFL 14.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-1.53%)
FNEL 1.23 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 6.33 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.12%)
KOSM 5.90 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (6.12%)
LOTCHEM 24.79 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.45%)
MLCF 103.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.14%)
NBP 173.05 Decreased By ▼ -2.23 (-1.27%)
NCPL 51.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.92 (-1.74%)
NPL 54.19 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.13%)
OGDC 315.50 Increased By ▲ 2.11 (0.67%)
PACE 9.26 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.65%)
PAEL 35.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-0.81%)
PIBTL 13.65 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (1.34%)
PPL 226.60 Increased By ▲ 4.79 (2.16%)
PRL 80.30 Increased By ▲ 1.22 (1.54%)
PTC 46.89 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.09%)
SSGC 23.90 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.13%)
TBL 9.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.11%)
TELE 7.65 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (3.52%)
TPL 24.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.60 (-2.39%)
TPLP 13.04 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (4.24%)
TREET 26.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-0.76%)
TRG 53.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.11%)

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has declared that the advisors in the FTO Office follow professional conduct with devotion, objectivity, and an unbiased approach while deciding cases.

In the latest order issued in the case of IESCO, the FTO held that there is no order on record by any Court/Tribunal establishing that the Large Tax Office (LTO) resorted to coercive action for the recovery of tax through illegal notice under section 48 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.

In an application before the FTO it was contested that the sales tax adviser of the FTO Office has ignored/skipped the root cause of the complaint despite (mechanically) recording crux of the matter in the order. The arguments also recorded in note sheets (not provided despite repeated requests) and binding verdicts provided have been disregarded for some unknown reasons.

The FTO order states, allegation that the advisor while examining the case and preparing draft recommendations intentionally misread or not read evidence and binding verdicts of the superior judiciary with a view to protect “some rogue elements working in the FBR, who happen to be past time friends,” suffice it say that the advisors in FTO Office follow professional conduct with devotion, objectivity and unbiased approach.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.