Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 235 2007 SLD 235 2007 PTD 1023 (2005) 91 TAX 41
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complainant No. 499-K of 2004, decision dated: 2-09-2004
, JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Shoaib A. Faridi and Muhammad Aslam Shaikh for the Complainant AND S.M. Shoaib, Deputy Collector for
Respondent.

Messrs ALLIED IMPEX

VS

SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 73,21(4)

Law: Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002

Section: 9(3)

Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000

Section: 2(3)

(a) Sales Tax Act (VIT of 1990)---Ss. 73 & 21(4)---S.R.O. 2(I)/2003, dated 1-1-2003---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Certain transaction not admissible--Complainant a commercial exporter---Withholding of refund claim despite fulfilling requirements of S.73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and new condition of providing Bank Credit Invoice for settling the refund claim on the ground that right to claim refund was not established unless and until the suppliers fulfilled responsibility of depositing the due tax in the treasury and claim became inadmissible if the input tax against which refund had been claimed was not verifiable---Complainant's unit blacklisted on grounds that major share/portion of purchases were made from the blacklisted units, being suspected of issuing fake/flying invoices without actual transfer of goods/supplies---Validity---No further supportive document was required to be filed by the complainant---Suppliers of the complainant were alleged to be suspected units issuing fake/flying invoices and to be non/nil filers out of which one had been deleted from the blacklist and other had been blacklisted after the tax period involved---Department had not established that the transactions with the suppliers, which were duly backed by the supportive documents, did not take place---Complainant was being harassed for failure of the department to enforce compliance on non filers or nil filers despite the fact that those units were registered by them---Notion that a refund claim could not be allowed unless the supplier deposited the tax collected by law on the supplies into treasury, was misconceived because it was contrary to law and rules---Once the document of refund had been filed as required under the law it was the obligation of the department to ensure that registered supplier fulfilled his obligation under the law and rules---Maladministration was proved for failing to examine such business record and commercial documents of the other persons (suppliers) concerned with the refund claim of the complainant in any manner it was necessary to satisfy themselves about the genuineness and admissibility…
🔒
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