AIRLINK 194.70 Decreased By ▼ -3.27 (-1.65%)
BOP 9.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-2.39%)
CNERGY 7.39 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.37%)
FCCL 38.17 Increased By ▲ 2.17 (6.03%)
FFL 16.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.43 (-2.54%)
FLYNG 27.54 Increased By ▲ 2.50 (9.98%)
HUBC 131.79 Decreased By ▼ -2.24 (-1.67%)
HUMNL 13.78 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-2.55%)
KEL 4.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-2.09%)
KOSM 6.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-3.17%)
MLCF 45.62 Increased By ▲ 0.64 (1.42%)
OGDC 214.57 Decreased By ▼ -3.66 (-1.68%)
PACE 6.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.44%)
PAEL 40.11 Decreased By ▼ -1.31 (-3.16%)
PIAHCLA 16.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-0.71%)
PIBTL 8.37 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.06%)
POWER 9.43 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.43%)
PPL 182.80 Decreased By ▼ -3.13 (-1.68%)
PRL 41.60 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (0.8%)
PTC 24.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.36%)
SEARL 102.84 Decreased By ▼ -1.81 (-1.73%)
SILK 1.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.99%)
SSGC 39.40 Decreased By ▼ -1.51 (-3.69%)
SYM 17.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.55 (-3.05%)
TELE 8.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-1.91%)
TPLP 12.84 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TRG 65.50 Decreased By ▼ -1.10 (-1.65%)
WAVESAPP 11.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-1.33%)
WTL 1.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-3.37%)
YOUW 3.95 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-1.25%)
BR100 11,973 Decreased By -136.6 (-1.13%)
BR30 36,137 Decreased By -461.1 (-1.26%)
KSE100 113,529 Decreased By -1513 (-1.32%)
KSE30 35,646 Decreased By -553.2 (-1.53%)

ISLAMABAD: The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad has withdrawn a penalty of Rs1,000,000 from a retailer, who failed to integrate its all retail Points of Sales with the Federal Board of Revenue’s computerized system.

In this connection, the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Divisional Bench-I), Islamabad has recently issued an order against the Commissioner Inland Revenue Regional Tax Office, Rawalpindi.

The crux of the order is that the FBR cannot impose the penalty under section 11 (2) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 which according to the tribunal deals with the assessment process. The provision of the penalty has been separately given under section 33 of the Sales Tax Act which was not properly being invoked and adjudicated by the FBR.

Brief facts of the case were that the registered person has failed to integrate its all retail points of sale with the FBR’s computerised system for real-time reporting of sales, which attracted a penalty of Rs1,000,000 as prescribed in serial number 25 of section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.

Therefore, show cause notice was issued and proceedings were initiated and a penalty of Rs1,000,000 was confirmed and held recoverable.

The registered person filed the appeal with the Commissioner Appeal, who decided to appeal against the taxpayer.

Being aggrieved, the registered person has approached the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad.

Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal ruled that the section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 does not allow recovery and imposition of penalty as prescribed at serial number 25 of section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 alone where liability on account of principal amount of sales tax discharged.

If the amount of penalty is considered a part of “tax” as used in the provisions, then there was no need for legislature to use the words penalty and default surcharge separately and independently.

The intention of the legislator is clear that the said registered persons, who deposit the due amount of sales tax, the provisions of the section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 are thereby ab-initio not attracted.

Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the order passed by lower authorities is annulled, the tribunal added.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022

Comments

Comments are closed.