Federal Tax Ombudsman former Justice Saleem Akhtar has slammed inordinate delay in issuance of machinery installation certificate and called for an inquiry and suitable action against the guilty customs officials.
Taking note of three years delay, the FTO observed that the importer/investor feels frustrated as it negates the government's investment policy.
The complainants Mehran Oil (Pvt) Ltd, Shahrae Faisal, Karachi, submitted an application for issuance of certificate of installation of machinery with indemnity bond to assistant collector, Hyderabad in July 2001, and sent a number of reminders for early action.
The machinery was imported vide bill of entry dated December 1999 and had submitted an indemnity bond of Rs 89,000 in respect of sales tax.
On June 29, the assistant collector issued the installation-cum-production certificate with the remarks that the certificate had been issued subject to the condonation of delay by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR).
The complainants alleged that he assistant collector issued the certificate after one year's delay, asking for submission of details under the sales tax general order but did not take any action to issue the certificate.
It was also alleged that the department did not issue a valid certificate and release the indemnity bond.
In reply, the assistant collector said that the indemnity bond was accepted by the assistant collector, Hyderabad in September 1999, but the machinery was imported through Karachi Customs House.
The department did not receive any letter in July 2001 or October 2001.When the letter dated June 2002 was received, the time limit had expired under SRO 987 (I) /99. Thus, the certificate was issued subject to the condonation of delay by the CBR.
The department also said that when the complainant's consultant applied for forwarding their request to the CBR, the complainants were asked to explain the reasons for delay and to furnish information about the machinery, which was furnished on May 12, 2003. The complainants were asked to approach the collector (appraisement) for condonation of delay.
Instead of applying to the collector (appraisement) they filed a complaint to the FTO's office. The department further took the stand that no maladministration was involved on its part and the complainants were requested to approach the collector for condonation of delay so that the indemnity bond could be released.
During hearing before the FTO, both the sides reiterated their position. The deputy collector of Customs denied that the first application had been submitted on July 9, 2001.
The only evidence available with the complainants was a postal receipt. The reminders sent by them were also not available on department's record, which showed that first application was received on June 10, 2002.
Against this position of the department, the complainants submitted photocopies of stamped postal receipts in support of the claims of letters dated 9.07.2001 and 24.10.2001 sent under postal certificates.
The FTO's order adds: The respondents denied the receipt of these letters and the reminders. Loss/misplacement of documents and letters from the members of the public/taxpayers is a common occurrence in government offices.
According to a news report published in The News of March 30, 2004, "officials of the tax tribunals are reported to have lost documents of more than 1,000 out of 8,000 taxpayers whose appeals are pending decisions for more than four years".
The news item lends credence to the complainants claim that their letters of 2001 were ignored (or lost) by the department and no action was taken for issue of the certificate.
The simple issue of installation certificate has become a contentious matter, which has lingered on for about three years. The importer/manufacturer rightly feels frustrated that the investment promotion policy of the government is negated by the procedural difficulties created by the field staff.
The unwillingness of the sales tax officials to do their duty in delivering service to the taxpayers involved in the manufacturing sector is deplorable.
Their inaction not only betrays neglect, inattention, delay, inefficiency and ineptitude in the discharge of their duties, but also shows an attitude which is perverse, arbitrary and oppressive.
The officials responsible for this negative attitude should be identified and suitably dealt with by the CBR.
It is recommended:
(i) CBR to direct the collector to issue a new unconditional certificate within 15 days; and
(ii) Direct the collector of Customs concerned to release the indemnity bond within 30 days.
(iii) Fix responsibility for inordinate delay in issue of installation certificate and take suitable action against the officials found guilty of delay; and
(iv) Compliance be reported within 45 days.
Comments
Comments are closed.