SRA DEMANDS OVER E9.9M FROM CARSON AUTO

MBABANE – Eswatini Revenue Authority is demanding over E9.9 million from Carson Auto (PTY) Limited.

According to the authority the money is in respect on the company’s VAT returns and Income Tax returns covering the period July 2015 to June 2018.

The company has now approached the Eswatini Revenue Authority Tax Tribunal where it is appealing the decision of SRA commissioner general that the business should pay a total sum of E9 920 279.97.

In its appeal the appellant (Carson Auto (PTY) Limited) narrated that it received a desk audit outcome letter dated March 26,2020, in respect of VAT and income tax returns covering the period July 2015 to June 2018. 

observed

The company further submitted that, according to the desk audit letter, the commissioner general observed that there was a variance between income tax returns turnover compared to the total VAT output , that is, there was an understated of total output supplied as compared with income tax returns.

The appellant said being dissatisfied with the findings made in the desk audit letter it submitted an objection letter dated July 7, 2020, furnishing reasons for the variance. 

According to the appellant, the authority responded to the objection letter.

SRA is  alleged to have stated  that an audit was specifically undertaken to verify the correctness of the returns submitted by a taxpayer as such it served no useful purpose to request for an amendment of returns since  the under declaration had already been unearthed by the audit.

The company highlighted that again being dissatisfied with the findings of the outcome of the objection letter it submitted to the authority, an appeal to the objection letter which was reportedly dismissed by the authority on October 5, 2020.

amend

“Therefore the appellant humbly avers that the commissioner general erred in law and in fact in finding that once an audit has been made a taxpayer can no longer be allowed to amend returns. There is no law quoted or a specific provision in the Income Tax Order,” contended the appellant.

The company also claimed that the commissioner general further erred in law  and in fact in basing income tax assessments on erroneous information.

 According to the appellant, the authority was made aware of the alleged inaccurate information it had used but still denied to correct the error.  This, as per, the appellant resulted in SRA making incorrect findings. 

unlawfully

“The commissioner general erred in law and in fact to impose 40 per cent penalty without any statutory justification. The appellant admitted to the omission and further requested for an amendment which was, however, unlawfully declined,” reads part of the appellant’s grounds of appeal.

It is the appellant’s prayer that the authority should be prevented from demanding payment of the disputed assessment and to continue to issue Tax Compliance Certificates to the company as and when required.

These are allegations whose veracity is still to be tested in court.

Through its attorney from KN Simelane Attorneys, the company has also filed an application at the High Court where it is seeking condonation for late filing of the appeal. 

 It is alternatively seeking an order directing that it was entitled to file or pursue its appeal before the Tax Tribunal in any unlikely event that the High Court found that the condonation for the late filing could not be granted.

appointed

Businessman Moses Motsa, who is the company’s Public Officer, deposed to an affidavit where he highlighted that the Minister of Finance had recently appointed or established a Tax Tribunal which had been non- existent ever since the promulgation of the VAT.  He pointed out that the Ministry of Finance having announced the appointment of the Tax Tribunal Commissioners the company then noted an appeal against SRA’s decision. 

“Despite the much welcomed appointment or establishment of the Tax Tribunal, the minister has not reinstated the suspended provisions of the VAT Act regarding the Tribunal. This was reasonably expected to take place immediately, hence the filing of the appeal before the tribunal,” submitted Motsa.

It was also his contention that SRA was seeking to rely on technicality so as to impose a liability and thereafter put the company in a position to pay a liability under circumstances in which such liability was not a true assessment.

The mater is pending at the High Court and appearing for the company is Kenneth Simelane of KN Simelane Attorneys.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: