AIRLINK 167.05 Increased By ▲ 1.69 (1.02%)
BOP 10.61 Increased By ▲ 0.22 (2.12%)
CNERGY 8.20 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (4.73%)
FCCL 46.36 Increased By ▲ 0.71 (1.56%)
FFL 15.33 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (1.39%)
FLYNG 26.89 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (1.55%)
HUBC 137.70 Increased By ▲ 2.42 (1.79%)
HUMNL 12.99 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.09%)
KEL 4.25 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (1.43%)
KOSM 5.65 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (3.29%)
MLCF 60.30 Increased By ▲ 0.87 (1.46%)
OGDC 217.00 Increased By ▲ 3.93 (1.84%)
PACE 5.51 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.85%)
PAEL 42.40 Increased By ▲ 0.39 (0.93%)
PIAHCLA 17.17 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.7%)
PIBTL 10.07 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.41%)
POWER 11.89 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.85%)
PPL 177.40 Increased By ▲ 2.61 (1.49%)
PRL 35.45 Increased By ▲ 1.09 (3.17%)
PTC 23.20 Increased By ▲ 0.50 (2.2%)
SEARL 96.35 Increased By ▲ 2.60 (2.77%)
SSGC 37.34 Increased By ▲ 1.23 (3.41%)
SYM 13.82 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (2.52%)
TELE 7.20 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (1.12%)
TPLP 10.31 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.98%)
TRG 61.65 Increased By ▲ 0.72 (1.18%)
WAVESAPP 10.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.78%)
WTL 1.32 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (3.13%)
YOUW 3.73 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.81%)
BR100 12,477 Increased By 163.5 (1.33%)
BR30 37,183 Increased By 675.6 (1.85%)
KSE100 116,420 Increased By 1510.3 (1.31%)
KSE30 36,010 Increased By 468.9 (1.32%)

LAHORE: A tractor manufacturer has proved that the entire exercise of issuance of SRO No. 563 (I)/2022 dated 29-04-2022 and its retrospective application was a mala fide act on the part of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to deprive taxpayer of its due refund claim.

The taxpayer had filed its refund claim worth billions of rupees under SRO No. 363(1)/2012 dated 13-04-2012, but a Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue had held him disentitled to refund claim in respect of period from July 2021 to February 2022 on the pretext that provisions of SRO No. 563(1)/2022 dated 29-04-2022 did not apply retrospectively and had also struck down word ‘existing’ in its Rule 39-0 of the controversial SRO.

Being aggrieved of order passed by Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue holding it disentitled to refund claim in respect of period from July 2021 to February 2022, the taxpayer approached to the relevant forums, including Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) with a plea that both the show-cause notice as well as order-in-original by Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue were passed without lawful authority and were of no legal effect.

The taxpayer stressed that he had filed its refund claims prior to the enactment of SRO 563 and in terms of SRO 363 and rule 3 in particular the refund of admissible input tax would be deemed to have been allowed within three days of receipt. Since the Commissioner Inland Revenue sat on the refund claims of the appellant and did not sanction them, this was used as a lever by FBR to delay the sanction of refund claims and thereafter proceeded to issue an SRO to stunt the claim.

Secondly, he said, the FBR neither has the power to take away vested rights and to upset past transactions nor to apply a notification retrospectively.

The higher appellate forum did not permit the department to let taxpayer go through the rigours of long drawn litigation process for refund claim, declaring that provisions of the controversial SRO did not apply to refund claims of taxpayer and it must be processed and disbursed expeditiously under the SRO of 2012.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.

Builder Sep 21, 2024 01:55pm
I've been saying all along - dismantle current tax office, layoff the corrupt and hire young competent blood. Current tax office is just a smelly pit of corruption and nothing else.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
jaffarhassannaqvi@gmail.com Sep 22, 2024 07:18pm
As per Shabbar Zaidi Sb most of FBR staff are corrupt and do create problems.Fire them ie 10000 of them as per him
thumb_up Recommended (0)