AIRLINK 196.38 Increased By ▲ 4.54 (2.37%)
BOP 10.11 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (2.43%)
CNERGY 7.75 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (1.04%)
FCCL 38.10 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (0.63%)
FFL 15.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.13%)
FLYNG 24.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.77 (-3.04%)
HUBC 130.38 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (0.16%)
HUMNL 13.73 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.03%)
KEL 4.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-1.5%)
KOSM 6.19 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.32%)
MLCF 44.85 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (1.26%)
OGDC 206.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-0.17%)
PACE 6.58 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.3%)
PAEL 39.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.78 (-1.92%)
PIAHCLA 17.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-2.22%)
PIBTL 7.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.99%)
POWER 9.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.43%)
PPL 178.91 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (0.2%)
PRL 38.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.38%)
PTC 24.31 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (0.7%)
SEARL 109.27 Increased By ▲ 1.42 (1.32%)
SILK 1.00 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (3.09%)
SSGC 37.75 Decreased By ▼ -1.36 (-3.48%)
SYM 18.83 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-1.52%)
TELE 8.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.81%)
TPLP 12.14 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-1.86%)
TRG 64.76 Decreased By ▼ -1.25 (-1.89%)
WAVESAPP 12.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.67 (-5.24%)
WTL 1.64 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-3.53%)
YOUW 3.87 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-2.03%)
BR100 12,000 Increased By 69.2 (0.58%)
BR30 35,548 Decreased By -112 (-0.31%)
KSE100 114,256 Increased By 1049.3 (0.93%)
KSE30 35,870 Increased By 304.3 (0.86%)

Federal Tax Ombudsman former justice Saleem Akhtar has asked the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) to make a refund of over Rs 1.4 million to a trader of Gujrat as refund has to be paid immediately irrespective of the fact whether the assessee has made any claim or not.
This, the FTO observed, was the verdict in a case decided by the Sindh High Court PTD 3956 of 2001.
Quoting another court order, the FTO said that the refund couldn't be withheld against any future demand. This principle is laid in a case reported as 2003 PTD 2317.
Complainant Chaudhri Bilal Ahmed, a trader of Serai Alamgir, Gujrat, had submitted that through an order dated December 9, the taxation officer had made an aggregate demand of Rs 1.947 million of which he paid Rs 1.467 million. But on appeal to the income tax tribunal commissioner of Income Tax Appellate Sialkot, the entire demand was wiped out in an order dated May 20, 2002.
Since then, he has been reminding the department to make the refund, but to no effect.
Once the department took the plea that assessments for the assessment years 1997-98, and 2001-02 were finalised and the entire refund stood adjusted there.
The complainant filed an appeal against the assessments made for 1997-98 and 2001-02 and the CIT (Appeals) set aside both the assessments.
After hearing arguments of both the sides, the Federal Tax Ombudsman said that non-issuance of refund is the subject matter of the complainant and the denial of his legal right to get the refund.
The FTO's order said that it has been held in a number of cases both by the superior judiciary and the FTO's office that when a refund became due, it had to be issued immediately. Reliance is placed in a case quoted as 2001 PTD 3956 (Sindh High Court).
The high court held that the refund should be immediately paid irrespective of whether the assessee has or has not made any claim in this respect.
The order also said that the issue regarding withholding the refund against any future demand has been discussed at length in an order passed by this office and reported as 2003 PTD 2317.
In the light of the discussion in the quoted case, the refund could not be withheld against any future demand.
The FTO, therefore, held that maladministration is established and that the refund amounting to over Rs 1.467 million be issued within 45 days and compliance of the order be reported within 30 days.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2004

Comments

Comments are closed.