DECISION /FINDINGS.
' This complaint is against non issuance of refund created at Rs,233,659 for the assessment year 1996-97 to 1998-99.
2. At the time of hearing none was present for the Department when called out. The learned counsel for the complainant, and the parawise comments from RCIT, Eastern Region, Lahore both confirm that refund amounting to Rs,233,659 was issued on 18-6-2003 vide Voucher No,
65. The learned counsel stated that refund was issued when parawise comments on the complaint were called.
3. It is pertinent to note that the Regional Commissioner has submitted reply as follows:-- "As reported by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Zone-B, Lahore, refund amounting to Rs,233,659 has been issued in the instant case vide Voucher No,065, dated 18-6-2003. The grievances have been redressed; hence the matter may please be treated as disposed of".
' All other allegations in the complaint have not been denied and shall be deemed to have been admitted. Even the department's representative did not appear on the date of hearing. From the facts stated in the complaint which have not been denied it is clear that the revised assessment for the assessm ent years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 were completed under sections 62/132 on 19-9-2000 creating a total demand of Rs, 13,239. The wealth assessments for the assessment years 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were completed on 8-5-2001 creating a demand of Rs,4,236. When recovery notice, dated 16-1-2002 was issued the complainant sent a reply through his advocate, dated 23-1-2002 (wrongly stated 23-1-2003) which was received by the ITI on 23-1- 2002 requesting that the refund of Rs,233,659 due may be issued after adjustment of the Income Tax and Wealth Tax demands. The department neither issued the refund nor replied the letter.
Again the advocate issued a letter, dated 6-3-2002 asking for refund of Rs,233,659 but no reply was sent nor refund was made.
4. After the complaint was filed and notice was issued for reply on 21-6-2003, the refund was issued on 18-6-2003 and the same was stated in reply, dated 19-6-2003. It was the duty of the. Regional Commissioner and the Commissioner to have replied to the allegations in the complaint particularly about delay in issuing the refund and failure to send reply to the letters of the complainant's advocate. All these allegations stand admitted and maladministration is proved.
The assessm ent was completed on 19-9-2000 and a demand of Rs,13,239 was created against the amount of Rs,254,040 paid by the complainant for the assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99 and tax payment challans had been furnished to the department. The inaction by the concerned officers and treating the matter by the Regional Commissioner and the Commissioner in a casual and non-serious manner manifest the behavior and treatment meted out to the tax-payers. Copy of legal notice was sent to the Inspecting Additional Commissioner but he too did not take notice of the illegal act and ineptitude of the Officers whose work he is duty bound to check and supervise.
5. The refund became due when assessment was made on 19-9-2000 but without any reasonable and legal ground the payment was delayed. The Commissioner and Inspecting Additional Commissioner did not reply, the letters of the complainant's advocate nor provided the relief which has been hastily granted to the extent of refund only after service of notice of the complaint. All these acts amount to maladministration. The complainant is entitled to compensation for delayed payment.
6. It is recommended that:-
(i) Compensation for delayed payment is made to the complainant.
(ii) Compliance is reported within three weeks. have agreed to make adjustment against purchase from negative units under protest and will claim refund after issuance of NOC to these units". Again the undertaking, dated 6-3-2003 (on record) reveals that the complainant had shown willingness to make adjustments in the manner as mentioned above but under protest. This position knocks out the department's contention that the complainant had given the undertaking voluntarily. The complainant appeared to have acted under pressure as revealed by both the audit report and the so-called undertaking. It appears that the respondents' actions to recover the amount in cash and adjustment of complainant's refund against so-called liabilities are premature. Based on the foregoing discussion it is felt that the ends of justice will be served if the case against the complainant based on the audit report is properly adjudicated after issuing a show-cause notice and given the complainant the opportunity of being heard to determine whether or not the liabilities created by the audit are sustainable. Accordingly, it is recommended that the C.B.R. Direct the Collector to:
(i) Confront the complainant with the charges/contraventions against it through a show-cause notice giving it the opportunity of both written and oral defence before deciding the case on its merit through a formal Order-in-Original.
(ii) The amount already recovered in cash and adjustment of refunds against liability created in audit report may be adjusted/refunded, as the case may be, in consequence of Orderin-Original as indicated in (i) above.
(iii) Compliance be reported within 30 days. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.