ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court (IHC) has imposed a fine of Rs500,000 on Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayer Office, Islamabad for filing a frivolous application before the IHC to deprive Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO) to reimburse the amount recovered through bank accounts attachments.
The IHC ordered that the cost of Rs500,000 payable by the applicant (Commissioner) in her personal capacity for filing a frivolous application. It appears that by filing a frivolous application another attempt is being made by the Commissioner to delay and deny illegally and coercively recovered funds during the currency of a stay order.
The IHC observed that despite grant of such opportunities, the Commissioner and the tax department have continued to manufacture one excuse after another to reimburse the petitioner (IESCO) to the extent of allegedly collected funds.
The IHC order states, this application is seeking the review of order dated 28.03.2024 to hold, inter alia, that an amount of Rs35 million be subtracted from an amount of Rs1060 million held in the said order to be refundable to the petitioner, for being an amount not having been coercively recovered by the tax department during the currency of a stay order.
The learned counsel for the tax department is further seeking revision of the order with regard to the refund amount by asking for a review of sales tax refund Sanction Order. He states that the Refund Sanction Order should be rewritten in view of a decision of this Court in its reference jurisdiction that generates liability against the petitioner, and such liability should be set-off against the Refund Sanction Order.
When asked as to the provision in law pursuant to which the Refund Sanction Order could be reviewed or revisited, the learned counsel for the applicant has been unable to point out any provision in law.
He merely states that a decision has been passed in Sales Tax Reference No11 of 2017 dated 02.04.2024 pursuant to which an amount will be due by the petitioner to the tax department.
When asked as to why such amount will not be recovered pursuant to an appeal’s effect order passed under Section 11(b) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the learned counsel for the applicant has been able to come up with no satisfactory answer. It appears that by filing a frivolous application another attempt is being made by the Commissioner to delay and deny illegally and coercively recovered funds during the currency of a stay order.
This petition has been pending since 2016 and as the order sheet reflects, repeated opportunities have been presented to the Commissioner and the tax department to reconcile the amounts coercively collected while a stay order was in place.
Despite grant of such opportunities, the Commissioner and the tax department have continued to manufacture one excuse after another to reimburse the petitioner to the extent of allegedly collected funds.
To make matters worse on 28.03.2024, the court had ordered the CEO of the petitioner and the Commissioner, assisted by counsel, to engage in a conference and provide the Court with an agreed amount as the refundable amount that would be inserted in the order of the Court as the amount to be reimbursed.
The amounts mentioned in the order dated 28.03.2024 were the consentual amounts jointly submitted by the Commissioner and the petitioner after reaching an agreement amongst themselves in view of the facts. In this backdrop the application is dismissed with a cost of Rs500,000 payable by the applicant in her personal capacity for filing a frivolous application: the IHC ordered.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.