Messrs TECHNOCRATE TRADING, PESHAWAR VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
2002 P T D 1867
[Federal Tax Ombudsman]
Before Justice (R) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman
Messrs TECHNOCRATE TRADING, PESHAWAR
Versus
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Complaint No. 1564 of 2001, decided on 08/12/2001.
(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑
‑‑‑S. 33(1)‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.4‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑‑Delayed filing of monthly return‑‑‑Imposition of penalty‑‑‑Complainant filed return on 17‑1‑2000, as 16‑1‑2000 was a holiday, thus, claimed concession' provided by S. 4, Limitation Act, 1908‑‑‑Department submitted that prescribed period for filing of monthly return for tax period of December, 1999 was 15‑1‑2000 and not 16‑12‑2000; and that complainant in spite of having been granted opportunity of hearing failed to appear before Adjudicating Officer, thus, ex parte decision imposing penalty was made‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Adjudicating Officer had correctly imposed the penalty under S.33(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, as he had no discretion either to exempt or reduce or enhance the quantum of penalty for that period‑‑‑Complaint was dismissed in circumstances.
(b) Taxation‑‑‑
‑‑‑ Tax Education Programme‑‑‑Necessity‑‑‑Tax Education Programme acquires greater significance in a country, where rate of literacy is deplorable low and tax reforms are being considered and are, in the process of implementation‑‑‑Notifying in official Gazette only serves to provide at legal cover, but does not inform the public at large‑‑ Occasional reminders about late date for filing of returns or tax payments appearing in newspapers are no substitute for a well orchestrated Tax Education Programme‑‑‑Advisable for Central Board of Revenue to publish k monthly publication called the "Monthly Tax News" both in English and Urdu incorporating various SROs, Rules, Regulations, CGOs and incentive offered for supply of information regarding tax evasion‑‑‑Such publication may be priced and available for sale not at Tax Offices, but also at various Book Stores.
Complainant in person.
Muhammad Saleem, Deputy Collector Sales Tax, Peshawar for Respondent.
DECISION/FINDINGS
This complaint filed by Mr. Mumtaz Pervaiz, Proprietor of Technocrate Trading a business concern registered with the Sales Tax Department arises out of imposition of penalty of Rs.5,000 for delayed filing of monthly return for the month of December 1999. The contention of the complainant is that he had filed a monthly return on 17th. January, 2000; as 16th January, 2000 was a holiday, which was permissible under section 4 of the Limitation Act.
2. The Department on the other hand has submitted that the prescribed date for filing of monthly return for the tax period of December, 1999 was 15th January, 2000 and not 16 as alleged by the complainant. Besides, the complainant was granted opportunity of hearing on 7‑2‑20P0, 18‑2‑2000 and 2‑3‑2000 by the competent Adjudicating Officer, but he failed to appear on each occasion.
Therefore, an ex parte decision was taken on 25‑4‑2000 and the
penalty was imposed under subsection (1) of section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The petitioner even failed to avail 50% Amnesty under S.R.O. 615(1)/2000 offered vide Letter C. No. ST/(Recovery)/Amnesty/ 343/2000/9727, dated 4‑9‑2000.
3. After hearing the arguments and after perusal of the record it is evident that the Adjudicating Authority had correctly imposed a penalty under section 33(1) of the Sales Tax Act, at Rs.5,000 for delayed furnishing, of monthly return, as he had no discretion either to exempt or reduce or enhance the quantum of penalty for this period.
4. The complainant has, therefore, no case and the same is dismissed.
5. Before parting with the present case, it may be pointed out that the frequency with which amendments are made in the tax laws with almost non‑existent Tax Education Programme on the part of the Board, is disquieting enough for the Tax Collectors and Tax Payers. As for instance penalty under section 33(1) of the Act was originally fixed at Rs.5,000 for failure to file the monthly sales tax return within prescribed time period, which was reduced in 1994 to a minimum of Rs.500 and maximum of Rs.1,000 per day, and the same was revived to Rs.5,000 in 1996 and again reduced in the year 2000 to Rs.2,500.
6. In a country where the rate of literacy is deplorably low, Tax Education Programme acquires greater significance. Moreso, when tax reforms are being considered and are in the process of implementation. Notifying in, the official Gazette only serves to provide a legal cover, but does not inform the public at large. Occasional reminders about the last date for filing of returns or for tax payments appearing to newspapers are no substitute for a well‑orchestrated Tax Education Programme. It would therefore, be advisable if the C.B.R. publishes a monthly publication called the "Monthly Tax News" both in English and Urdu, incorporating all the relevant information for the tax paying community including various SROs, Rules, Regulations, CGOs etc. It may be a priced publication and may be available for sale not only at the tax offices, but also at various Book Stores. In addition any incentives to be offered for supply of information regarding tax evasion may also be duly published therein.
7. It is recommended that suggestion at para. 6 may be considered in public interest and suitably implemented. Steps already taken if any may also be intimated.
8. Compliance may be reported within 60 days.
S.A.K./T‑249/FTO
Order accordingly.