& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Telcos' claims for VAT rebate stuck in a rut

Sohel Parvez
The National Board of Revenue (NBR) has rejected three mobile operators' claims for aTk308 crore VAT rebate.
The tax regulator said Grameenphone, Banglalink and Robi failed to show appropriate invoices for the rebate.
An invoice, known as Mushak-11 Challan, is required for a firm to seek any VAT rebate, revenue officials said, citing rules.
The mobile operators had earlier paid 15 percent VAT on 2G licence renewal fees to the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, with a condition that the companies would be able to claim a VAT rebate from the NBR later.
Mobile operators said they demanded the rebate on the basis of the copies of acknowledgement receipts ofVAT deposits.
But the NBR officials said they cannot consider the rebate claims because the telecom regulators' acknowledgement receipts are not legally recognised as the invoice for VAT payment to the state coffers.
"If the government declares the receipts of payment accepted as VAT invoice or Mushak-11 Challan, we can consider the rebate claims," said an NBR official asking not to be named.
The other way is to make the BTRC a VAT-registered entity, the official added.
"We cannot be sure that the money is deposited to the state coffers until one shows Mushak-11 Challan," said the official.
The standoff began after three mobile phone operators claimed rebates in their VAT accounts in line with a decision of an inter-ministerial meeting on July 26.
Grameenphone claimed Tk 141 crore as a VAT rebate, Banglalink Tk 85 crore and RobiTk 82 crore, officials said.
The rebate claims were also made in line with a High Court order, which directed authorities to give Grameenphone the VAT rebate. Based on the order, other operators also claimed the rebate.
The HC issued the directive after a writ petition filed by Grameenphone in October 2011.
READ MORE ON B3 FROM PAGE Bl
"The need for Mushak-11 Challan is a technicality, which the NBR can waive, or the BTRC can issue the relevant challan if it has a VAT registration number," said Barrister Zaki Omar, director (legal and compliance) of Grameenphone.
He said the decision to cancel rebate on the VAT paid is 'unexpected'.
"We are still hopeful that an amicable resolution can be reached where all parties will be able to take steps to resolve outstanding legal proceedings out of court," said Omar.
"We will file appeal with the NBR against the decision," said Mahmudur Rahman, executive vice president of Robi.
He said the BTRC had earlier told the telecom operators that the NBR would accept the copies of the telecom regulator's acknowledgement receipts ofVAT deposits.