AIRLINK 72.50 Increased By ▲ 3.30 (4.77%)
BOP 5.01 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (2.24%)
CNERGY 4.31 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (1.17%)
DFML 31.80 Increased By ▲ 0.55 (1.76%)
DGKC 80.60 Increased By ▲ 3.35 (4.34%)
FCCL 21.02 Increased By ▲ 1.02 (5.1%)
FFBL 34.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.29%)
FFL 9.29 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (1.86%)
GGL 9.84 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.41%)
HBL 113.50 Increased By ▲ 0.74 (0.66%)
HUBC 134.41 Increased By ▲ 1.37 (1.03%)
HUMNL 7.02 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.01%)
KEL 4.37 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (3.31%)
KOSM 4.38 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (3.06%)
MLCF 37.30 Increased By ▲ 0.70 (1.91%)
OGDC 135.04 Increased By ▲ 2.17 (1.63%)
PAEL 23.78 Increased By ▲ 1.14 (5.04%)
PIAA 24.72 Increased By ▲ 0.52 (2.15%)
PIBTL 6.55 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.39%)
PPL 120.72 Increased By ▲ 4.42 (3.8%)
PRL 26.48 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (2.24%)
PTC 13.29 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (1.61%)
SEARL 52.80 Increased By ▲ 0.80 (1.54%)
SNGP 71.04 Increased By ▲ 3.44 (5.09%)
SSGC 10.55 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.09%)
TELE 8.40 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.45%)
TPLP 11.15 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (3.24%)
TRG 60.85 Increased By ▲ 1.56 (2.63%)
UNITY 25.30 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (0.68%)
WTL 1.27 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BR100 7,491 Increased By 81.8 (1.1%)
BR30 24,543 Increased By 507 (2.11%)
KSE100 71,478 Increased By 810.7 (1.15%)
KSE30 23,432 Increased By 207.9 (0.9%)

LAHORE: A cotton processor has secured input tax refund, which was rejected by the sales tax department after the expiry of the stipulated timeframe, said sources.

They said the relevant tax authority had kept referring matter if refund of input tax on various objections raised by the Computerized Risk based Evaluation of Sales Tax (CREST). It was followed by the issuance of show cause notice for rejection of input tax refund after six years of relevant time/period. The competent authority had also passed an assessment order that was maintained by the Commissioner Inland Revenue Appeals.

However, the taxpayer contested the show cause notice on the ground that where an executive authority exercises its jurisdiction after the expiry of the period provided in a statute, such exercise of jurisdiction without any iota of doubt, is illegal and unlawful. He further contended that when a period is provided by a special statute, then any proceedings or actions taken under the provisions of special statute has to be taken within stipulated time.

According to the taxpayer, the show cause notice for rejection of input tax could not be issued beyond the period of five years of the relevant time. He said issuance of show cause notice within five years was a mandatory requirement for an action by the department, which could not be escaped in any case.

Therefore, the show cause notice, in his case, had hopelessly barred by the statutory time limitation and he had acquired vested right of escapement of assessment by lapse of time once limitation had started to run and had come to an end.

It may also be noted that the department had initiated the contravention proceedings in absentia against the taxpayer and culminated in passing an assessment order challenged by the later.

The department had also ignored that the claiming refund of sales tax had incurred in connection with zero-rated supplies clubbed with supportive documents completed in all respects. However, after lapse of many years, the department waked up from inebriated sleep for issuing show-cause notice, which was hopelessly time barred.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.