2005 PLP 1390 (PTD)

12. The complainant, therefore, avers that entire payments to the suppliers are in order and in accordance with provisions of section 73 of the Act. Contrary to the factual position as available on record, an adverse finding (in para. 10 of the impugned order) has been recorded on the ground that mere production of tax invoice is not enough to prove that the goods were actually received. This is a falsification of record and amounts to gross maladministration as the complainant had produced complete documentary evidence as prescribed by law. The DC (Adjudication) has deliberately ignored the complainant's tax record available with him and the explanation submitted on 20th June, 2004.

13. The DC (Adjudication) has committed gross maladministration in deliberately ignoring and violating the finding recorded by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in Complaint No.848 of 2002. The findings so recorded were specifically brought to the notice of the DC (Adjudication) vide written submission, dated 20th June, 2004. These were binding on the DC (Refund-II). The findings are reproduced hereunder:-- (i) Revenue had not contended that any of the vendors had disowned the issuance of tax invoices. (ii) There was no basis for the respondent to observe that the complainant had not received supplies against such invoices. (iii) The complainant had been denied refund claims on a mere hypothesis that the registered vendors who issued the tax invoices were either fake or fraudulent. (iv) None of the allegations made about the four vendors suggested any misdeclaration, false statement or false claim by the complainant in contravention of any provisions of either section 7, or section 8, of the Sales Tax Act. (v) Adjustment of input tax claimed by the complainant could not be denied on the basis of any of the allegations against the vendors.

14. The DC (Refund-II) has also imposed a penalty of Rs.591, 984 under section 33(4) without issuing any show-cause notice. Complainant's explanation in para. 8 of the written submission, dated 20-6-2004 has been completely ignored. It amounts to maladministration on account of making a decision contrary to law, perverse, arbitrary, without valid reasons, involving exercise of powers for administrative excess, incompetence and ineptitude in discharge of duties and responsibility. 14A. Responding to the notice under section 10(4) of the FTO Ordinance the Deputy Collector has averred that complainant failed to submit any proof in support of the claim that they physically and actually received the goods. Moreover, the bank statement provided by the complainant at the time of hearing before the Deputy Collector, Sales Tax (Refund) in support of their contention that they had made payment against these invoices, it has been found that the bank statement does not show the exact amount transferred against each invoice. Their contention that they have made lump sum payment against 3-4 invoices through one banking instrument is not tenable because it defeats the very purpose of reflection of the amount paid by the buyer to the supplier in the bank statement of buyer, in terms of section 73 of the Act. Besides the amount was not transferred in the account shown by the suppliers in their registration documents.

15. Thus, the respondent avers that requirements of section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 that no adjustment/refund of input tax shall be allowed unless the registered person claiming such refund/input tax adjustment holds a valid tax invoice in support of his claim has not been fulfilled. Regarding his reason to believe that the tax invoices held by the complainant were fake, the respondent has again relied upon the list circulated by the Collector Sales Tax, Faisalabad vide Letter C. No.STR/ Misc/15/2001/3435, dated 24-9-2001 in which names of aforementioned four 'suppliers' of the complainant are included. The Collector has also directed in the letter ibid that invoices of these units should not be entertained for input tax adjustment/refund purposes as there are reasons to believe that these persons got themselves registered fraudulently and issued fake sales tax invoices either without having any manufacturing facilities or the matching manufacturing facilities.

16. Requirement of section 8 of the Act ibid that a registered person shall be entitled to claim refund or adjust input tax paid on the goods only if such goods are used or to be used for no purpose other than for manufacture and production of taxable goods has not been fulfilled either. The case has been adjudicated upon afresh in the light of findings of the Federal Tax Ombudsman after providing the complainant proper opportunity to produce records and present his viewpoint. The relevant record pertaining to the suppliers was also made available to the complainant. Regarding the allegation that access to the report of Processing Officer under Rule 5 of Refund Rules has been denied to the complainant, the respondent has submitted that there are no reports on record as such except the remarks and notings of Processing Officer as well as the Officer in Charge on the file which have been offered for inspection to complainant's counsel. He has also denied the allegation that sufficient opportunity was not allowed to the complainant regarding verification of evidence in support of compliance of provisions of section 73 of the Sales Tax Act. The Order-in-Original No.6 of 2004 passed on 20-6-2004 is an appealable order if he is aggrieved with the order. The complaint again filed before the Federal Tax Ombudsman is not maintainable because there is no case of maladministration as defined under section 9(2)(b) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.

17. The respondent further avers that Messrs Rana Textile Faisalabad was registered as wholesaler on 20-6-2000 but subsequently changed its status and got itself registered as manufacturer on 25-7-2000. Respondent had drawn adverse inference about genuineness of the tax invoices issued by it on the ground that, at the time of registration, it declared total capital employed at Rs.0.5 million only, against which he has shown supplies of more than Rs.172 million during first five months of registration. The registered person has also shown purchase for Rs.174 million during first four months and adjusted the input tax against output tax payable against the supplies shown by him. Overall, during the entire period for which the unit remained functional/operative, it has shown total supplies worthy Rs.415 million but has paid an amount for Rs.46,793 only as tax on its output during the entire period of 11 months. The registered person has made purchases worth Rs.11.51 million without procuring any bank loan in first month of registration i.e. July, 2000. Thus, the respondent inferred that these were mere paper transactions. As per registration documents, a person namely Farhan Hashim declared as sole proprietor of the unit with NIC No.293-77-543975 has been confirmed to be fake by NADRA vide letter No. Regn. 4/58/2002-SKP (Tech) 421, dated 20-3-2002.

18. The name of Messrs Rana Textile, Faisalabad was included in the list of blacklisted/suspected units issued by the Collectorate of Sales Tax, Faisalabad vide C. No. STR/Misc/15/2001/5063, dated 25-1-2002. The complainant is trying to mislead this forum by stating that the Collectorate has taken no action under section 21(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Section 21(2) stipulates that:-- "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in cases where the Collector is satisfied that a registered person is found to have issued fake invoices, evaded tax or has committed tax fraud, he may blacklist such person or suspend his registration in accordance with such procedure as the Board may, by notification in the official Gazette, prescribe".

19. The respondent avers that the Collector, Sales Tax, Faisalabad has ordered for re-opening the Order-in-Original No.22 of 2001 passed by the Deputy Collector (Adjudication), Faisalabad for audit. Thus, averment of complainant about payment of out put tax against the said Order-in-Original is not tenable. Similarly, the respondent disputes averment of the complainant regarding taxable activity by the unit on following grounds:-- * As per investigation carried out by I & P Cell of this Collectorate, the unit did not exist at the address declared in registration documents i.e. P-86, New Jalvi Market, Jaranwala Road, Faisalabad. * Further investigation revealed that the said premises were hired by another person namely Muhammad Azhar S/o Muhammad Idrees who has been arrested in case F.I.R. No.4 of 2001 against Messrs Hajveri Weaving Industries. * It was also revealed during investigation that the declared proprietor of Messrs Hajveri Weaving Industries namely Naveed Khan (whose NIC was also confirmed fake by NADRA) has signed the lease agreement executed by Messrs Rana Textiles, as a witness. It is also interesting to note that telephone number (545462) declared by Messrs Rana Textile in their registration documents is also mentioned in the registration application of Messrs Hajveri Weaving Industries. * The aforementioned facts regarding relationship between Messrs Rana Textile Mills and Messrs Hajveri Weaving Industries, clearly led to the conclusion that it is a gang involved in issuing fake and flying invoices, operating in different names. At the time of registration as manufacturer, the registered person showed only one address, which was Gali No.7, Faisalabad where, as per declaration, only 12 looms of 120" width were installed. However, subsequently they have shown their looms installed at six other places/addresses, none of which is verifiable. * The fact that the unit did not exist or was never established is also substantiated from the fact that in the spite of huge production and supplies shown by the registered person, they have never claimed any input tax against electricity bills, which itself is an ample proof to establish that the unit did not operate for a single day.

20. Respondent further avers that Messrs Hummail Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. was registered as manufacturer. As per registration documents it has shown authorized capital of Rs.2.00 million only. As per records, the unit worked for 18 months (from July, 2000 to Aug-2001), during which it has shown supplies worth Rs.400.021 million, but paid an amount of Rs.547, 618 only as output tax for the entire period. As per records, the registered person started business in leased premises. The lease agreement was made between Messrs Hummail Textiles (Lessee) and Shahid Mehmood Anjum (Lessor) who was in Jail when the said lease agreement was executed. Manzoor Ahmad, brother of Shahid Mahmood Anjum gave affidavit that his brother did not execute the said lease agreement because he (Manzoor Ahmad) had already leased out the said looms to another firm namely Messrs S&Z Fabrics (Registration No.08-90-9999-813-37) and the looms remained with Messrs S&Z Fabrics till June, 2001, whereas the lease agreement submitted by Messrs Hummail Textiles shows the date of agreement as 26-4-2000. As per declaration at the time of registration, the unit has shown a total number of 34 looms, which was later shown as 280 looms. However, neither any such declaration was ever made to the sales tax department nor whereabouts of these remaining 246 looms were ever declared. The fact that no taxable activity or no manufacturing of taxable goods was ever carried out by Messrs Hummail Textiles is evident from the fact that the unit has never claimed any input tax against the electricity charges despite having shown production and supplies worth Rs.400.021 million.

21. It is further averred that the officials who verified existence of the said unit in their audit report were proceeded against and subsequently dismissed from service by the competent authority. The contravention report has been submitted to the Collectorate of Adjudication, Faisalabad involving detection of Rs.60.912 million on account of inadmissible input tax adjustment, issuance of fake/flying invoices, excessive input claimed for which no disposal has been shown by the unit and non-maintenance and non-production of record. Prosecution proceedings were initiated against the unit vide F.I.R. No.1 of 2001, dated 28-1-2001 and currently under trial before Honourable Special Judge, Customs and Excise, Lahore.

22. The respondent avers that the Collector, Sales Tax, Faisalabad has ordered for re-opening the Order-in-Original No.35 of 2001 passed by the Deputy Collector (Adjudication), Faisalabad for audit. Thus, allegation of withholding the copy of Order-in-Original does not arise. As far as deposit of Rs. 5,000,000 is concerned, the case is re-opened; contention of the complainant, therefore, is irrelevant.

23. Similarly, regarding Messrs Best Fabrics. Faisalabad, the respondent avers that the unit was registered as wholesaler of cotton fabrics. The declared capital of registered person at the time of registration was Rs.1.00 million only. During five months its declared supplies amounts to Rs.90 million, out of which the registered person has shown supplies worth Rs.45 million during first month. However, it has paid Rs.29,205 only towards output tax.

24. The Registration record shows Muhammad Farooq as proprietor. During inquiry, he has stated that he was an employee of Irfan Sohail Raza who got this unit registered against his (Irfan Sohail Raza) NIC. He (Irfan Sohail Raza) further confirmed that the unit did not exist and as such no taxable activities were ever carried out at this unit. The rent agreement made between Muhammad Farooq (Tenant) and Naveed Altaf (Owner) was also confirmed fake. Naveed Altaf, who was shown as owner in the rent agreement confirmed in his statement that since he was not the owner of the premises, he could not make any rent agreement in respect of the said premises. In view of these facts, it is beyond doubt that unit was fake and all the transactions/supplies shown by them were actually not made.

25. The respondent avers about Messrs Baba Farid Textile Mills that during the financial year, 2000-2001, the registered person has shown purchases for Rs.2.4 million, but has not made payment to respective suppliers. They have in fact 'manipulated/tampered' the cheques issued in the name of suppliers and thus received the payment themselves. This charge was also established against them in Order-in-Original No.18 of 2002, dated 30-5-2002, passed by the Additional Collector (Adjudication) Faisalabad. The respondent avers that as the suppliers never manufactured goods claimed to be purchased by the complainant, question of physical delivery of goods does not arise.

26. Section 3 places the responsibility for payment of sales tax on the supplier whereas section 8 places a parallel and equal responsibility on the buyer. The respondent avers that the complainant has claimed refund on invoices, which do not fulfil requirements of either section 8(1)(a) or section 7(2)(1) of the Act ibid. Input tax refund can be claimed according to section 7(2)(1) only against tax invoice showing supply in respect of which a return is furnished and input tax refund can be claimed according to section 8(1)(a) only on goods used or to be used for the manufacture or production of taxable supplies made or to be made. Thus the requirements of entitlement to refund remain unfulfilled. Under the circumstances, the refund claimed by the complainant is in contravention of the express provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.

27. During the course of hearing on 10-4-2003, Syed Saghir Tirmizey, counsel for the complainant was requested to provide the documents showing physical transfer of goods to the complainant i.e. inventory record. Neither these documents were provided to the Adjudicating Authority at that time nor the same was furnished along with reply, dated 19-6-2004 by the complainant. Paper transactions were being made by these blacklisted units just to facilitate the exporters to claim/receive illegal/fraudulent refund. Following points support the contention of the Department. * Messrs Rana Textile Faisalabad: NIC of the owner was declared fake by the NADRA. Huge volume of transactions is declared without employing sufficient capital. (Para. 18 supra) * Messrs Hummail Textiles: Lease agreement was never executed between the owner of the premises and the supplier of the complainant. (para. 21 supra) * Messrs Best Fabrics, Faisalabad: The declared proprietor of the firm has disowned issuance of invoices. (para. 15 supra) * Messrs Baba Farid Textile Mills have 'manipulated/tampered' the chaques issued in the name of suppliers and thus received the payment themselves. This charge was established against them in Order-in-Original No. 18 of 2002, dated 30-5-2002, passed by the Additional Collector (Adjudication) Faisalabad. (para. 26 supra)

28. Respondent avers that the complainant was found involved in claiming illegal/inadmissible input tax adjustment/referred against fake invoices issued by the units supra. Section 33(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 stipulates as under:-- 33(4) Any person who- (a) submits a false or forged document to any officer of Sales Tax: (b) destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies the records (c) knowingly or fraudulently makes false statement false declaration, false representation false personification, gives any false information of issues or uses a document which is forged or false. (d) denies or obstructs the access of an authorized officer to business premises, registered office or in any other place where records are kept; (e) Otherwise obstructs the authorized officer on the performance of his official duties: or (f) commits, causes to commit or attempts to commit the tax fraud, shall pay a penalty of twenty five thousand rupees or thirty percent of the amount of tax involved, whichever is higher. Thus, the respondent avers that the complainant has made false statement to the sales tax department and attempted to commit tax fraud rendering it liable to penal action under the Act. The complainant was called upon to explain his position vide Show-Cause Notice No.STR/FTO/17/ 2002/889, dated 1-4-2003. The case was decided vide Order-in-Original No.46 of 2003, dated 19-4-2003. The Order-in-Original No.46 of 2003 was cancelled and re-opened by the competent authority for re-examination. Therefore, issuance of fresh show-cause notice was not required.

29. Representatives of the parties attending the investigation proceedings have been heard and facts gathered in the proceedings have been examined with their assistance. The basic factors on which the merits of the instant complaint will be determined are: (a) That the respondent has not denied that the four suppliers of the complainant named supra were duly registered under the Sales Tax Act giving them licence to make taxable supplies and collect sales tax thereon. (b) All the four suppliers were operating in the market during August, 2000 to September, 2001; notwithstanding the allegation that they made false declarations in their registration forms. (c) Misdeclaration of facts in the registration applications by the aforesaid suppliers was detected for the first time in September, 2001 and the Collector Sales Tax, Faisalabad circulated a list of such unit vide Letter, C. No. STR/Misc/15/2001/3435, dated 24-9-2001. (d) The respondent does not deny that the complainant is a commercial exporter. (e) The respondent has not questioned complainant's exports and conversely admits corresponding inputs. (f) The respondent has alleged that the complainant has failed to produce cartage and octori bills/receipts in support of delivery of inputs to him but the respondent has failed to show the sales tax law or the rule in force during the relevant period under which the complainant is required to keep such record. (g) The respondent has not denied that the complainant has maintained all the record as prescribed under the Sales Tax Act for the corresponding period and that the entire input and output/export is posted in the prescribed record supported by the invoices and export documents. (h) The respondent has no case that complainant's exports are fake and fraudulent. (i) Regarding compliance of the provisions of section 73 of the Sales Tax Act by the complainant the respondent has made following adverse observations:-- (i) The bank statement does not show issuance of cross cheque issued against each invoice separately instead payment against more than one invoice has been paid through a single cheque. (ii) The bank account number in which such cheques are collected is not the same as shown by supplier in the Registration Application Form. (k) However the respondent has not denied that the bank account in which the cross cheques issued by the complainant is not maintained by the said supplier. (l) The respondent has not referred to any provision of law of rule in force during relevant period that required a supplier to collect the proceed and the amount of sales tax thereon in the same bank account as declared in the application for registration.

30. As for the contraventions alleged supra against the registered suppliers, it is a matter purely between the respondents and the alleged registered contraveners/suppliers and do not have any bearing on complainant's obligations in law, rules and regulations as in force during the relevant tax periods. Even the list of suspected units circulated by the relevant Collectorate much after the relevant tax period has no sanctity in any law, rules or regulations. The only credibility that may be assigned to such list in practice is to alert the functionaries administering the law to carefully verify the invoices issued by such registered units and withhold claims on the basis of such invoices only for a reasonable period sufficient to verify that such tax invoices were issued by the suppliers whose name and address was printed thereon, that payment against such invoices was made through cross cheque collected by the supplier through Bank Account opened and operated by him and that the quantity of goods recorded in such invoices were consumed in manufacturing for export/domestic sale or exported in same state. The only obligation of the complainant/buyer under the law was to ensure and prove that the supplier was a registered person, that the payment against the tax invoices was made through cross cheques issued in the name of such suppliers collectable in payees account only and that the quantity of goods recorded in such invoices were consumed in manufacturing for export/domestic sale or exported in same state. The respondent is totally oblivious of the fact that the buyer/complainant neither had nor can ever been saddled with any obligation under the law to know the source wherefrom the said registered vender was supplying the goods. It is alleged by the respondent during investigation proceedings that the alleged proprietor of Messrs Best Fabrics, Faisalabad has disowned issuance of the tax invoices but the complainant was never confronted with allegation during the adjudication proceedings.

31. Neither adjustment/refund of input tax can be denied nor any penal action can be taken unless it is conclusively proved through due process of law that such tax invoices were not issued by such registered units and payment was not collected by the vendor in his bank account or no goods had been procured by the buyer/complainant against such tax invoices from the vendor and used as input against taxable or zero rated output/export. Since the rules in force during the relevant period did not prescribe any specific documents to be kept in respect delivery of goods, any reasonable documentary evidence of procurement of such goods recorded in stocks and consumption/export thereof should be sufficient. As long it is not the case of the respondent that the registered supplier has not collected input sales tax from the registered buyer/complainant for the supplies made in the manner considered in the preceding lines it is the duty of the respondent under the law to ensure collection of the amount of sales tax from the vendor whom the buyer has paid such amount. The respondent is bound to honour the statutory commitment of the State to the registered buyer/exporter/manufacturer etc.

32. Contraventions like false declaration in application for registration, suppression of capital employed in business, suppression of element of profit/value addition in output by manipulating cost of inputs and false claims of input tax etc. by complainant's suppliers duly registered under Sales Tax Act have no nexus with complainant's refund-claim of sales tax paid by them on their input if there is no conclusive finding that the transactions between the complainant and their alleged suppliers were manipulated and fake. Unless it is so proved within a reasonable time, no adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant and no penal action can be initiated against them. The test for reasonability of time is in the promptness of sequence of process under the law ever since the alleged prima facie evidence has placed on record. Long gaps, inattention, inordinate inaction or misdirected action would render the time consumed to be unreasonable warranting a finding of maladministration against the concerned functionary, entitling the complainant to the refund claimed even at the expense of the State.

33. Denying input tax adjustment against taxable/zero rated supplies/ exports instead of pursuing registered vendors involved in the deals their bankers and identifying the ultimate registered person who has embezzled the amount of tax collected on behalf of the State is maladministration of worst order. These are acts of omission contrary to law, rules and regulations involving exercise of powers or failure or refusal to do so for administrative excess or reflecting neglect, inattention, incompetence and ineptitude in performance of duties by the respondent.

34. The foregoing traits are specifically included in the definition of maladministration under section 2(3)(i)(a)(d) and (ii) of the FTO Ordinance. Maladministration according to subsection (3) of section 2 of the Ordinance, besides all else, which the word "maladministration" ordinarily means or connotes, includes whatever is enumerated in clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of subsection (3) of section 2 of the FTO Ordinance. The definition of the term mal-administration, inter alia, covers a decision, process, recommendation, act of omission or commission, which is contrary to law, rules or regulations. Where a decision, process, recommendation, act of omission or commission which is contrary to law, rules or regulations, bona fide has no part to play. To justify a decision, process, recommendation, act of omission or commission which is "contrary to law", as settled by the binding decisions of judicial forums or where the language of law does not beg any interpretation, on grounds of bona fide is inconceivable. Sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of subsection (3) of section 2 of the Ordinance supra includes in "maladministration" a decision, process, recommendation, act of omission or commission which. * is contrary to law, rules or regulations. or * is a departure from established practice or procedure, unless it is bona fide and for valid reasons. (Emphasis provided)

35. It is evident that the rider "unless it is bona fide and for valid reason" governs the second part of sub-clause (a) of clause (i) supra, and is an exception to the common dictionary meanings of the word "maladministration". Further, the use of conjunction "and" in the rider requires the functionary administering tax law to prove that departure from established practice or procedure was both bona fide as well as for valid reasons. The burden is squarely on the respondent department and failure to discharge the onus on anyone of the two counts or both shall not absolve it of maladministration. Where a decision, process, recommendation, act of omission or commission which is contrary to law, rules or regulations as settled by the binding decisions of judicial forums or where the language of law does not beg any interpretation the Federal Tax Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to investigate and recommend remedial measures.

36. The foregoing analysis show that the definition of the term maladministration, inter alia, covers a decision, process, recommendation, act of omission or commission which is contrary to law, rules or regulations. Where a decision, process, recommendation, act of omission or commission which is contrary to law, rules or regulations, bona fide has no part to play. To justify a decision, process, recommendation, act of omission or commission which is "contrary to law", as settled by the binding decisions of judicial forums or where the language of law does not beg any interpretation, on grounds of bona fide is inconceivable.

37. In fact, none of the other categories of maladministration specifically included in its wide dictionary definition supra vide sub-clauses of clause (i) as well as clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) is qualified with the phrase unless it is bona fide and for valid reasons". The dictionary definition of maladministration is to manage (e.g. public affairs) badly, dishonestly or incompetently or in other words poor management or regulation, esp. in an official capacity and at times also termed misadministration. Dishonesty in making a decision, adopting a process, making a recommendation, performing an act of omission or commission or making a departure from the established practice or procedure is only one of the several unspecified specific traits of maladministration mentioned in its inclusive definition supra.

38. Thus the natural construction of section 9(2)(b) of the FTO Ordinance would be that the bar is restricted to adjudication on actual assessment of income or wealth, determination of liability of tax or duty, classification or valuation of goods and interpretation of unsettled law in respect of which legal remedies of appeal, review or revision are available under the Relevant Legislation. Provided that even such assessment of income or wealth, determination of liability of tax or duty, classification or valuation of goods is not tainted with any of the following traits of maladministration: Decision is perverse, arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction or unreasonable, unjust, biased, oppressive, or discriminatory; Decision is based on irrelevant grounds; or Decision involves the exercise of powers, or the failure or refusal to do so, for corrupt or improper motives, such as bribery, jobbery, favouritism, nepotism, and administrative excesses. The traits envisaged under sub-clauses of clause (i) as well as clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) have been specifically included in the definition of maladministration per se because those have impaired the very credibility of C.B.R. The objection raised by the respondent to the jurisdiction of this forum over the instant complaint is overruled.

39. It is recommended:-- (i) That the Collector of Sales Tax or C.B.R. as the law requires sets aside the Order-in-Original, for reasons found supra, by invoking jurisdiction under section 45A of the Act. (ii) That the Collector of Sales Tax ensures that the competent Officer conducts verification of relevant facts in accordance with law and rules in the light of observations and findings recorded in paras. 30 to 33 supra and the matter is readjudicated within a reasonable time not exceeding 70 days. (iii) That in case the complainant is found to have fulfilled his obligations under the law, the refund claims of the complainant are allowed within 15 days of such finding. (iv) Compliance is reported within 90 days. C.M.A./353/FTO (I) Order accordingly.