2004 PLP 1161 (PTD)

(Amount in Million) Total Tax paid as per returns Rs.5977.862 Amount paid as advances and later on adjusted against out put tax Rs.2600.000 Input adjusted during the tax period as per returns Rs.31,8.729 Gross output tax during the-tax period as I per returns Rs.8896.591

7. The Collector further stated that the complainant's contention that PTCL had shown domestic revenue as Rs.47.17 billion and excise duty as Rs.4.39 billion compared to domestic revenue for 2001 at Rs.42.92 billion and excise, duty at Rs.6.12 billion was flimsy because PTCL revenue accounts were maintained on the basis of fiscal years and not calendar year. He staged that PTCL actually paid Rs.8896.95 million, which exceeded the figure of Rs.7.07 billion.

8. The Collector contended that this type of complaints were not based on any sound footing. The information consisted of bits and pieces collected from media reports and unauthentic sources. There was no real effort which could qualify as information as specified/defined in the relevant Reward Rules. He requested that the complaint being devoid of any substance and solid ground be rejected.

9. The hearing of the complaint was fixed on 2-7-2003 when Mr. Zahid Hussain Bhyo, Additional Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise, Rawalpindi, attended the hearing. The complainant, however, faxed a letter, dated 19-6-2003 requesting for adjournment to another date. The hearing was therefore adjourned to 24-7-2003 vide notice, dated 2-7-2003.

10. The complainant sent copies of two letters, dated 9-7-2003 and 17-7-2003 addressed to the Collector Rawalpindi asking that interim audit report and sales tax returns of PTCL for the period 2001-2002 be provided to him. The same request was reiterated vide his application, dated 22-7-2003 that (i) proper reply of the respondent's comments as well as detailed submissions/clarification and copy of interim audit report and sales tax returns be provided to him under section 24-A of General. Clauses Act as laid down in various rulings of the superior Courts; and (ii) all correspondence /noting related to the case be provided under Freedom of Information Ordinance of 2002. He requested that the respondent be directed to provide the above documents and thereafter three weeks time be allowed for clarification/detailed submission:

11. The complainant did not attend the hearing on 25-7-2003. Mr Amer Rashid, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax, Islamabad, attended the hearing and stated that the telephone directories were supplied by PTCL to the subscribers without any charge and, therefore, the question of levy of sales tax thereon did not arise. He stated PTCL have clarified that in Financial Year 2001-2002 its revenues increased to Rs.47.178 billion and the amount of duty collected thereon was Rs.6.9 billion as against the erroneously printed amount of Rs.4.4 billion in the annual audit report of 2002. The Deputy Collector argued that the complainant was not an aggrieved party and had no locus standi to complain against PTCL for alleged short-payment of duty/sales tax. He requested that the complaint be dismissed.

12. The complaint against the PTCL about the evasion of duty taxes and sales tax on supply of telephone directories and services rendered by them has not been substantiated by the complainant. The decision with regard to his request for providing copies of sales tax returns and audit report rests with the PTCL or the C.B.R. Since no; maladministration has been reported by the complainant, the complaint is not maintainable and, is therefore, dismissed C.M.A./984/FTO Complaint dismissed.