Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 188 2012 SLD 188 2012 PTD 544
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complaint No.452/KHI/ST (138)/1167 of 2011, decision dated: 19-12-2011
DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Manzoor Hussain Kureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Arshad Shehzad Authorized Representative. Nasir Khan, ACIR Departmental Representative

Messrs FROOTO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

VS

SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 66

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---S. 66---Refund to be claimed within one year---Excessive delay in allowing appeal effect---Taxpayer contended that till filing of complaint, department, despite repeated efforts, did not allow appeal effect and issue the refund due---Revenue conceded that claims arising out of appellate orders had to be refunded but claims could not be processed unless submitted through RCPS of STARR system and manual processing of refund claims was no more permissible; and when officer concerned approached the Director General (SP&R), Federal Board of Revenue, for permission to generate electronic Refund Processing Order, it was informed that claims under S.66 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 could be lodged at Refund Claim Counter---Validity---Revenue despite admitting the claim of refund, showed inability to process the subject refund through the RCC as no procedure for handling refund claims arising out of court orders, where verification of bills and invoices was not involved, was provided in the STARR software---Delay in allowing appeal effect and settling refund claims being established was tantamount to maladministration---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Federal Board of Revenue to revisit the instructions regarding refund processing through STARR dated 12-4-2003 so that payment of refund and maintenance of record were both clearly provided for; direct the concerned officials to allow appeal effect to appellate orders dated 24-1-2011 and 16-3-2011 and issue refund due, as per law. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE (FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN).---The complainant, a manufacturer of fruit juices, has filed complaint against the Department for excessive delay in allowing appeal effect to the Appellate Tribunal's Orders dated 24-1-2011, and in sanctioning refund due. 2. According to the AR, the Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 24-1-2011 set-aside order of the Collector (Appeals) pertaining to claims for the tax period May, 2004 and June, 2004, with the direction that matter be decided after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the complainant. Similarly, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the complainant's plea and…
🔒
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