Presented at Shri Rajshwa Tribunal in Kathmandu

Appeal letter

Baglung District Baglung Na.Pa. Ward no. 4 located on behalf of J.V. of Tata Projects Limited.
Dhanusha District Janakpur U.P.M.N.P. under the authority of Ward no. 4 years of residence 34 Ram
Babu Karna's......................................... ........................................1

against

Mr. Middle Level Taxpayer's Office, Babarmahal, Kathmandu............................................1

Issue: VAT (A.Y. 2075/076)

The said opponent Mr. Middle Level Taxpayer Office, Babarmahal, Kathmandu. Issued in the case of
this appellant company for 2075/076. No. 773 dated 2080/02/30 and after receiving the final tax
assessment order and the decision paper issued in that regard, before Mr. Internal Revenue
Department to get it canceled because the basis and reasons for determining the said tax are
contrary to the law and the valid principles of the law. Regarding the administrative review, the
decision made by Mr. Internal Revenue Department Lazimpat dated 2080/06/12 and received on
2080/10/22 should be appealed within 35 days from the date of receipt. , as we have been granted a
stay of 15 days according to Section 223 of 2074, we have appeared with an appeal letter within the
period of stay.

1. Since the facts of the dispute and the conduct of the decision during the administrative review will
be known from the relevant Missile, it has not been repeated. So get the missile shot.

2. We request as follows that the decision sheet issued by Mr. Internal Revenue Department is
flawed and that the final tax assessment order mentioned in the order and decision sheet issued by
the opposing office should be approved first.

Item No. of the Final Tax Assessment Order. 1 In relation to showing more purchases than actually
made:

a. The final tax assessment order issued by the opposition office, decision sheet and administrative
review decision point no. 1 in "This taxpayer Four S. Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Purchased with Rs.
40,56,235.00, the said taxpayer paid this taxpayer Rs. 38,26,278.00 as it was shown that this tax
payer dist. Four S. Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Purchase made with Rs. 2,29,957.00 was found to have
been over-purchased and the factual evidence proving the over-stated amount was not submitted
during the tax audit and claimed credit for the over-stated purchase amount, the VAT amount was
Rs. 29,894 will not get tax deduction according to section 17 of Mo.A. Tax Act, 2052 and because he
claimed the said tax deduction, A. According to section 29(1a) of the Act, the penalty will be 25%, A.
It seems that the tax has been determined as "Additional fees and interest should be collected as per
Section 19 and 26 of the Act".

b. In relation to that, the appellant company Four S. Security Services Pvt. Ltd. There is no dispute
that the purchases taken are related to the regular business of the company and thus the expenses
incurred for the purpose of earning income from the business are actual expenses. Section 17 of the
MoA Tax Act, 2052 stipulates that the amount of tax paid or payable when importing or receiving
taxable goods or services can be deducted from the amount of tax collected by this company. It is
clear that the VAT paid on actual purchases made with As far as the sales shown by the said taxpayer
is less than the purchase shown by this company
The issue of how much business has transpired between the two companies is not a matter to be
determined based on the accounts of one of the companies, so it cannot be assumed that this
company has claimed credit for a higher amount just based on the fact that a company has shown
low sales to this company.

c. If the VAT credit amount claimed by the appellant company was claimed according to the invoice
issued by the seller, then the invoices, ledgers and other evidences proving the transactions related
to the VAT credit claimed have been submitted during the tax audit. In this way, when the evidence
related to its business is presented, how the other company disclosed the business is not within the
knowledge of this company, if there is a difference in the business between the two sellers and the
buyer, it is the responsibility of the opposite office to show which taxpayer's details are real. In
Section 14 of the Evidence Act, 2031, "Accounts, books, etc. regularly maintained in connection with
any work, action or business, any matter regularly submitted or reported in other sources, letters
written in relation to transactions or business, compensation, Chalani or any other details can be
taken as evidence. In the event that this company has submitted objective proof documents such as
invoices, ledgers, invoices, which confirm the actual transactions with the taxpayers under the
presented point, the opposing office, which bears the responsibility of making a judicial decision, has
decided that the details and evidence submitted by this company are wrong without examining the
submitted evidence. Without mentioning it, the tax assessment which invalidated the credit claimed
in the actual transaction done by this company based only on the statement prepared by other
taxpayers is erroneous.

d. "The burden of proving that it is taxable income is on the tax office or the tax officer" from the
honorable Supreme Court N. K. Pa. 2066, No. No. In 7730 the theory has been proved. Similarly,
N.K.P. 2079, no. In 10920, it is explained that "the burden of proving the validity of the above tax
return submitted by the taxpayer during the assessment of tax shall remain with the tax officer".
Appointed by the honorable court. From the theory itself, it is clear that the responsibility of the
opposing office is to verify the claim on an objective basis by ascertaining the issue of what kind of
goods and for which bill, this company has purchased more from the seller companies and claimed
more credit. However, the opposition office has not been able to confirm with objective evidence
whether the information submitted by this company under Schedule-13 is wrong, or whether the
information submitted by the taxpayer is correct, the VAT amount paid on the actual purchase of this
company. As the tax was assessed in such a way as to invalidate the credit, the tax assessment of the
opposition office is erroneous and is in error.

Item No. of the Final Tax Assessment Order. 2 Regarding the fact that the purchase is shown to be
lower than the actual purchase:

a. The final tax assessment order issued by the opposition office, decision sheet and administrative
review decision point no. 2 in "This taxpayer is Delta Core Pvt. Ltd. Purchased with Rs. 73,55,453.00,
the said taxpayer paid this taxpayer Rs. 73,88,961.00 as it was shown that this taxpayer sold Delta
Core Pvt. Ltd. Purchase made with Rs. 33,508.00 showed that he made low purchases and similarly,
this taxpayer said that he made purchases with Shrikrishna Gandaki Traders for Rs. 19,82,020.00, the
said taxpayer paid this taxpayer Rs. 20,04,910.00 was shown to have been sold by this taxpayer, but
in the purchase made from Shrikrishna Gandaki Traders, Rs. 22,890.00 showing that this taxpayer
made low purchases in the purchases made with the mentioned taxpayers totaling Rs. 56,398.00 was
found to be understated and since the fact evidence proving the understated amount could not be
submitted during the tax audit, this taxpayer treated the understated purchase amount as having
sold it to another person or firm without including it in his business. .W. Adding 3 percent to the price
increase shown in the financial statement of Rs. 58,090.00 this year. As per Section 7 of the VAT Act,
2052, as per section 7 of the VAT Act, 2052, the amount to be increased by 13% will be Rs. 7,552.00
Value added tax to be assessed and A. 100% penalty according to section 29(2) of the Act, Act.
According to the section 19 and 26 of the Act, it seems that the tax has been determined as
"Additional fees and interest should be calculated and collected".

b. In this regard, the appellant company, which conducts business in accordance with the prevailing
law, also maintains its regular business accounts in accordance with the prevailing law. I request that
the balance sheet, income statement, etc. prepared by the appellant company be verified by the
auditor appointed according to the law. The expenses claimed by the company are claimed according
to the invoices issued by the vendors and service providers. Claim more or less amount than said
amount

Can't even do it. The amounts claimed under this point are claimed according to the invoice issued
by the seller. The issue of how much business has transpired between the two companies is not a
matter to be determined based on the accounting of one of the companies, so it cannot be assumed
that this company has purchased more than that amount based on the fact that a certain company
has shown more sales to this company.

c. In order to confirm that, the petitioner company has the burden of providing evidence to confirm
the real transaction, including the bill for which the petitioner company has purchased the excess
amount, the means by which this company has paid the excess amount, etc. Mr. Internal Revenue
Department, when the administrative review decision is made, it is the responsibility of the taxpayer
to confirm the transaction with the supplier firm from which he purchases goods. All the documents
to confirm the tax are submitted at the time of tax audit. In this way, when the evidence related to its
business is presented, how the other company disclosed the business is not within the knowledge of
this company, if there is a difference in the business between the two sellers and the buyer, it is the
responsibility of the opposite office to show which taxpayer's details are real.

d. "The burden of proving that it is taxable income is on the tax office or the tax officer" from the
honorable Supreme Court N. K. Pa. 2066, No. No. In 7730 the theory has been proved. Similarly,
N.K.P. 2079, no. In 10920, it is explained that "the burden of proving the validity of the above tax
return submitted by the taxpayer during the assessment of tax shall remain with the tax officer".
Appointed by the honorable court. From the theory itself, it is clear that it is the responsibility of the
opposing office to verify the claim on an objective basis by ascertaining what kind of goods this
company has purchased from the said vendor companies for which invoice, and how this company
has paid the price for the said excess purchase amount. However, the opposite office has asked
whether the statement under Schedule-13 submitted by this company is incorrect, and whether the
statement submitted by the said taxpayer is correct.
The tax assessment of the opposing office has been flawed due to the fact that objective evidence
has not been able to confirm the relationship.

e. In Section 14 of the Evidence Act, 2031, "Accounts, books, etc. regularly maintained in connection
with any work, action or business, any matter regularly submitted or reported in other sources,
letters written in relation to transactions or business, compensation, Chalani or any other details can
be taken as evidence. In the event that this company has submitted objective evidence documents
such as invoices, ledgers, and bank statements confirming the actual transaction with the seller
under the points presented, the statement submitted by this company without examining the
evidence submitted by the opposing office, which bears the responsibility of making a judicial
decision. And without mentioning in the decision why the evidence is wrong, based on the statement
prepared by other taxpayers, the tax assessment which is included in the profits and gains of this
company, which is not purchased by this company, is wrong.

f. Vat Act . Sub-section 1(a) of Section 5 of the Tax Act, 2052 provides that VAT is levied only on goods
or services supplied within Nepal. Ai. The legal system also makes it clear that only actual supplies
made by a tax payer should be taxed only on the basis of guesswork. Statements and accounting
statements prepared annually by this company have been prepared by an approved auditor in
accordance with prevailing laws. Even though the said taxpayers showed more sales to this company,
this company did not have any more transactions with the said companies than this company
showed and in the situation where the opponent could not even confirm the said excess purchase, it
is assumed that this company sold the amount of the alleged excess purchase to some other person
based on the assumption based on the lack of objective evidence. The tax assessment which has
been done by falsely claiming that VAT has been collected from the company on the sale amount of
the said amount has been erroneously done by the company in the transaction which it has not
done.

Item No. of the Final Tax Assessment Order. 3 Regarding the amount entered by the taxpayer in
excess of the amount actually purchased:

a. The final tax assessment order issued by the opposition office, decision sheet and administrative
review decision point no. 3 in "This taxpayer has this A.Y. Ma Ama Dblam/Royal Construction J. From
Rs. 34,81,529.00 worth of purchases, the said taxpayer entered the VAT Returns Details of the
Internal Revenue Department's ITS System this year. Taxable sales in Rs. 0 and VAT collected on sale is
Rs. As it is seen that the VAT return has been submitted mentioning 0, this tax payer has submitted
Ama Dblam/Royal Construction J. The value added tax amount claimed as credit on the purchase of
services made by V is more than the sales amount is Rs. 4,52,599 as per section 17(1) of VAT Tax Act,
2052, and claimed the amount that was not deducted. 50% fine according to section 29(1a) of the
Act, Act. It seems that the tax has been determined as "Additional fees and interest should be
collected as per Section 19 and 26 of the Act".

b. In this regard, the appellant company Ama Dblam/Royal Construction J. There is no dispute about
the fact that the purchases taken with V are related to the regular business of the company and thus
the expenses incurred for the purpose of earning income from the business are actual expenses.
Section 17 of the Vat Tax Act, 2052 stipulates that the amount of tax paid or payable when importing
or receiving taxable goods or services can be deducted from the amount of tax collected by this
company. It is clear that the VAT paid on actual purchases made with As far as the sales shown by the
taxpayer are less than the purchases shown by this company, the issue of how much business has
been transacted between the two companies is not a matter to be determined based on the
accounting of one of the companies. It cannot even be assumed that it was done.
c. If the VAT credit amount claimed by this appellant company was claimed according to the invoice
issued by the seller, then the invoices, ledgers and other evidences proving the transactions related
to the claimed VAT credit have been submitted during the tax audit. In this way, when the evidence
related to its business is presented, how the other company disclosed the business is not within the
knowledge of this company, if there is a difference in the business between the two sellers and the
buyer, it is the responsibility of the opposite office to show which taxpayer's details are real. In
Section 14 of the Evidence Act, 2031 “any act,

In the course of proceedings or business, the account, ledger, ....... or any matter regularly submitted
or stated in other sources, letters written in connection with the transaction or business, payments,
invoices or any other details can be taken as evidence. is In the event that this company has
submitted objective proof documents such as invoices, ledgers, invoices, which confirm the actual
transactions with the taxpayers under the presented point, the opposing office, which bears the
responsibility of making a judicial decision, has decided that the details and evidence submitted by
this company are wrong without examining the submitted evidence. Without mentioning it, the tax
assessment which invalidated the credit claimed in the actual transaction done by this company
based only on the statement prepared by other taxpayers is erroneous.

d. "The burden of proving that it is taxable income is on the tax office or tax officer" from the
honorable Supreme Court N. K. Pa. 2066, No. No. In 7730 the theory has been proved. Similarly,
N.K.P. 2079, no. In 10920, it is explained that "the burden of proving the validity of the above tax
return submitted by the taxpayer during the assessment of tax shall remain with the tax officer".
Appointed by the honorable court. From the theory itself, it is clear that the responsibility of the
opposing office is to verify the claim on an objective basis by ascertaining the issue of what kind of
goods and for which bill, this company has purchased more from the seller companies and claimed
more credit. However, the opposition office has not been able to confirm with objective evidence
whether the information submitted by this company under Schedule-13 is wrong, or whether the
information submitted by the taxpayer is correct, the VAT amount paid on the actual purchase of this
company. As the tax was assessed in such a way as to invalidate the credit, the tax assessment of the
opposition office is erroneous and is in error.

3. Therefore, on the basis of the above considered facts, the law and the valid theory propounded by
the court, the final tax assessment order invalidating the legal credit claim claimed by this taxpayer
and considering the sales not from the appellant company as sales, the final tax assessment order,
the decision sheet and the same As the order of administrative review is flawed, it should be
annulled and justice should be done.

4. A.Y. In 2075/076, the tax determined in M.A. Tax is Rs. 8,30,904.00 half of Rs. 4,15,452.00 to be
deposited as a bond, during the administrative review, Rs. 2,83,000.00 filed as bond
An additional one-fourth of the assessed tax for the purpose of filing an appeal in the Honorable
Revenue Tribunal is Rs. 2,08,000.00 to be deposited, the said Rs. 2,08,000.00 amount of bank receipt
submitted along with this application, I have attended to register the letter of appeal.

5. The present appeal falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as per Section 32 of the Income Tax
Act, 2052.

6. Attached copies of documents and evidence:

a. Final Tax Assessment Order dated 2080/02/30

b. Decision sheet dated 2080/02/30 issued by Mr. Internal Revenue Office

c. Decision sheet dated 2080/06/12 issued by Mr. Internal Revenue Department

d. Compensation for understanding the letter

e. Bank Voucher

f. Authority

is. In Waresna

7. The information written in it is true, if it is found to be a lie, the money will be paid according to
the law.

the appellant

He or Rambabu Karna

In this regard, every day of the month of 2080