| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 253 2007 SLD 253 2007 PTD 1141 (2004) 90 TAX 326 |
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complaint No. 329-K of 2004, decision dated: 20-07-2004
, JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Ms. Danish Zuberi and Ms. Umera Ali Barristers for the Complainant AND Abdul Hameed Memon for
Respondent
Complaint No. 329-K of 2004, decision dated: 20-07-2004
, JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Ms. Danish Zuberi and Ms. Umera Ali Barristers for the Complainant AND Abdul Hameed Memon for
Respondent
Messrs RECKITT BENCKISER PAKISTAN LTD
VS
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 34,33,36
Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000
Section: 2(3),2(3)(ii),2(3)(i)(a)
(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 36, 33 & 34---Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Recovery of tax not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded---Show-cause notice for recovery of sales tax and initiation of penal action for violation on account of sales of Furniture and equipment; Motor vehicle; Scrap and Devaluation of Plant and other assets without payment of sales tax---Validity---Fact that information about disposal of fixed assets was picked by the audit from the annual accounts of the complainant showing the complainant disposing of depreciated furniture and depreciated motor vehicles and complainant had sufficient reasons, on the authority of decisions of judicial forums, to believe that the disposition of fixed assets made by the complainant was not in furtherance of its business and was not liable to sales tax, leads to incontrovertible conclusion that the complainant did not fail to deposit the amount of tax due or any part thereof in the time or manner laid down under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 or rules or order made thereunder as envisaged under S. 33(2)(cc) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Even if, in order to protect the interest of revenues till the issue was finally settled, non-levy of tax on disposal of fixed assets was deemed to be "by reason of deliberate act" and as such notice under S.36(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was considered valid, the fact that all decisions in the field were in favour of complainant's view, the notices to levy penalty under S.33 and additional tax S.34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 were premature if not totally unwarranted; hence without valid reasons---Maladministration was proved---Three misconceived charges of contravention of law were framed due to lack of competence and negligence in examining the account books for verification of payment of tax due---Senior officers in the Department, while handling the response of tax employee against whom maladministration was alleged, endorsed the same---Tax employee should not disregard the settled principles of providing due and sufficient opportunity before recommending or taking any action against a tax…
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