AGL 34.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-2.05%)
AIRLINK 132.50 Increased By ▲ 9.27 (7.52%)
BOP 5.16 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.38%)
CNERGY 3.83 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-2.05%)
DCL 8.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.61%)
DFML 45.30 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (2.44%)
DGKC 75.90 Increased By ▲ 1.55 (2.08%)
FCCL 24.85 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (1.55%)
FFBL 44.18 Decreased By ▼ -4.02 (-8.34%)
FFL 8.80 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.23%)
HUBC 144.00 Decreased By ▼ -1.85 (-1.27%)
HUMNL 10.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.33 (-3.04%)
KEL 4.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KOSM 7.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-3.25%)
MLCF 33.25 Increased By ▲ 0.45 (1.37%)
NBP 56.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.65 (-1.14%)
OGDC 141.00 Decreased By ▼ -4.35 (-2.99%)
PAEL 25.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.19%)
PIBTL 5.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.35%)
PPL 112.74 Decreased By ▼ -4.06 (-3.48%)
PRL 24.08 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.33%)
PTC 11.19 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.27%)
SEARL 58.50 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (0.15%)
TELE 7.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.93%)
TOMCL 41.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.24%)
TPLP 8.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.96%)
TREET 15.14 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.39%)
TRG 56.10 Increased By ▲ 0.90 (1.63%)
UNITY 27.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.54%)
WTL 1.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-2.24%)
BR100 8,615 Increased By 43.5 (0.51%)
BR30 26,900 Decreased By -375.9 (-1.38%)
KSE100 82,074 Increased By 615.2 (0.76%)
KSE30 26,034 Increased By 234.5 (0.91%)

The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has admitted before the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) that the STARR refund automation system has no procedure for handling sales tax refund claims made on court orders, where verification of bills and invoices is not involved.
The departmental representative of the FBR has made these remarks while hearing the case of a manufacturer of fruit juices of Karachi, which has filed complaint against the department to the FTO for excessive delay in sanctioning due refund. The DR, despite admitting the complainant's claim, showed inability to process the subject refund through the Refund Claim Counter (RCC) as no procedure for handling refund claims arising out of court orders, where verification of bills and invoices was not involved, was provided in the STARR software.
He stated that under the circumstance the DG Strategic Planning and Statistics (SP&R), FBR, had been again requested, vide letter dated 23.11.2011, to allow processing of claims of the complainant through generation of electronic Refund Processing Order (RPOs).
The department informed the FTO that claims arising out of appellate orders had to be refunded. However, as per procedure laid down by the FBR, the claims could not be processed unless submitted through Refund Claim Processing System (RCPS) of STARR system. It was contended that manual processing of the refund claims was no more permissible under the Sales Tax Act.
It was further contended that when the Officer concerned approached the Director General (SP&R), FBR, for permission to generate electronic Refund Processing Order (RPO), he was informed vide letter dated August 27, 2011 that claims u/s 66 of the Act could be lodged at Refund Claim Counter (RCC) functioning in the Regional Tax Offices (RTOs)
The authorised representative argued that the subject claims were not accepted at the RCC, as it required Refund Claim Processing System (RCPS) data ie invoices and bills etc which for the cases where refund arose out of appellate orders was not available. In the instant case also the sales tax demand was created and the same was recovered by the Department through pay orders. The refund claims remained unattended despite instructions of the DG (SP&R) conveyed to the officer concerned vide letter dated 27.8.2011 to generate electronic RPO. He stressed that only method available in such cases was to process the same manually.
According to the FTO's findings, the delay in allowing appeal and settling refund claims tantamount to maladministration in terms of Section 2(3((ii) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. The FTO has recommended the FBR to revisit the instructions regarding refund processing through STARR so that payment of refund and maintenance of record are both clearly provided for. The FBR should direct the concerned officials to allow appeal effect to appellate orders and issue refund due, as per law and report compliance within 30 days.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2011

Comments

Comments are closed.