CHICAGO METAL WORKS, MULTAN VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
2012 P T D 168
2012 P T D 168
[Federal Tax Ombudsman]
Before Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, Federal Tax Ombudsman
Messrs CHICAGO METAL WORKS, MULTAN
Versus
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Complaint No.338/LHR/ST(52)/668 of 2011, decided on 20/09/2011.
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S.47A(4)---Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)(ii)---Alternative dispute resolution---Recommendations of Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee were sent to the Federal Board of Revenue for approval but no action was taken by the Board---Taxpayer deposited the amount recommended by the Committee, however, feeling aggrieved due to inaction of the Federal Board of Revenue on the report of the Committee, maladministration was alleged for the delay---Validity---Complaint was sent to Revenue Division for comments---Chief Commissioner confirmed the facts stated in the complaint and submitted that decision of Federal Board of Revenue on the recommendations of the Committee was awaited and further action would be taken on receipt of decision of the Federal Board of Revenue---Federal Board of Revenue was required to pass an order in terms of S.47A(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 within 45 days of receipt of report of Alternative Dispute ResolutionCommittee---Delay in passing of order on the recommendations of the Committee was established which would tantamount to maladministration in terms of S.2(3)(ii) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the Federal Board of Revenue to take decision on the recommendations of Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee within 14 days.
Saeed Akhtar, Advisor for Dealing Officer.
Riaz Ahmad Raja, ITP for Authorized Representative.
Saleem Akhtar Khan, DCIR for Departmental Representative.
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE (FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN).---This complaint has been filed alleging maladministration for the Department's failure to pass orders on the Recommendations of ADRC (Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee) in terms of section 47A(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990
2.The Sales Tax auditors after examining the complainant's records for the period 2002-2004 observed discrepancies regarding suppression of supplies and evasion of sales tax. A Show-Cause Notice was issued which culminated in the passing of Order-in-Original No.724 of 2004 dated 21-9-2004 for the recovery of an amount of Rs.351,530. The appeals filed before the Collector (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal were dismissed, and so the complainant filed a reference before the Lahore High Court. Another amount of Rs.15,149 adjudged vide Order-in-Original No.428 of 2002 dated 31-5-2002 was also outstanding against the complainant, making the total outstanding liability (Rs.351,530 + 15,149) = Rs.366,679.
3.The complainant requested the F.B.R. for constitution of ADRC in terms of section 47A of, he Sales Tax Act, 1990, to resolve the dispute regarding outstanding recovery. The F.B.R. accordingly constituted a committee under section 47A(2) ibid. The ADRC recommended the F.B.R. to accept recovery of Rs.124,702 against the adjudged liability to resolve the dispute. The Recommendations of ADRC were sent to the F.B.R. vide letter C.No.18/2007/ADRC/ ST/4560 dated 29-4-2009 for approval in terms of section 47A(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, but no action was taken by the F.B.R.
4.The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.124,702 recommended by the ADRC on 8-1-2011. However, feeling aggrieved due to inaction of the F.B.R. on the report of ADRC, the complainant filed this complaint before the Hon'ble FTO alleging maladministration for delay.
5.The complaint was sent to the Revenue Division for comments in terms of section 10(4) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000. The Chief Commissioner, RTO, Multan, in his comments confirmed the facts stated in the complaint and submitted that decision of the F.B.R. on the Recommendations of the ADRC was awaited and further action would be taken on receipt of decision of the Board.
Findings:--
5-A The F.B.R. was required to pass an order in terms of section 47A(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, within 45 days of receipt of report of ADRC. Delay in passing of appropriate order on the Recommendations of ADRC is established which is tantamount to maladministration in terms of section 2(3)(ii) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000.
Recommendations:--
6.F.B.R. to--
(i)take decision on the Recommendations of ADRC within 14 days; and
(ii)report compliance within 7 days thereafter.
C.M.A./238/FTOOrder accordingly.