AGL 40.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-0.4%)
AIRLINK 129.53 Decreased By ▼ -2.20 (-1.67%)
BOP 6.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.15%)
CNERGY 4.63 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (3.58%)
DCL 8.94 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.36%)
DFML 41.69 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (2.66%)
DGKC 83.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.31 (-0.37%)
FCCL 32.77 Increased By ▲ 0.43 (1.33%)
FFBL 75.47 Increased By ▲ 6.86 (10%)
FFL 11.47 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.06%)
HUBC 110.55 Decreased By ▼ -1.21 (-1.08%)
HUMNL 14.56 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (1.75%)
KEL 5.39 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (3.26%)
KOSM 8.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-6.46%)
MLCF 39.79 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (0.91%)
NBP 60.29 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
OGDC 199.66 Increased By ▲ 4.72 (2.42%)
PAEL 26.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.15%)
PIBTL 7.66 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (2.41%)
PPL 157.92 Increased By ▲ 2.15 (1.38%)
PRL 26.73 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.19%)
PTC 18.46 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.87%)
SEARL 82.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-0.7%)
TELE 8.31 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.97%)
TOMCL 34.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.12%)
TPLP 9.06 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (2.84%)
TREET 17.47 Increased By ▲ 0.77 (4.61%)
TRG 61.32 Decreased By ▼ -1.13 (-1.81%)
UNITY 27.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.04%)
WTL 1.38 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (7.81%)
BR100 10,407 Increased By 220 (2.16%)
BR30 31,713 Increased By 377.1 (1.2%)
KSE100 97,328 Increased By 1781.9 (1.86%)
KSE30 30,192 Increased By 614.4 (2.08%)

ISLAMABAD: The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad has withdrawn a penalty of Rs1,000,000 from a retailer, who failed to integrate its all retail Points of Sales with the Federal Board of Revenue’s computerized system.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