A petition was filed in the Supreme Court this week on the Default Taxes (Special Provisions) Bill which states that material modifications and/or additions had been made to the aforesaid Bill at the Committee Stage of Parliament, thus denying the constitutional right of a citizen under Article 121 of the Constitution.
The petitioner is Nihal Sri Ameresekere, a chartered accountant and consultant for both the private and public sectors. Mr. Ameresekere had previously filed applications ‘in relation to the impugned Inland Revenue (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 2003. In this case, the petition stated that one or more clauses of the Bill could not be legitimately passed by Parliament to be enacted into law in view of specific prohibitions in the Constitution.
The petitioner stated that clauses of the Bill go beyond the scope of the objectives and policies contained in the 'Title' and the 'Preamble' thereof, demonstrating that it is misleading and a deception, violate equality before the law in terms of the Article 12(1) of the Constitution, and would facilitate public revenue to be defrauded, causing extensive loss to the State.
The petitioner further stated that clauses violate previous determinations of the Court and are inconsistent with provisions of the Constitution. Furthermore, one or more clauses of the Bill require a special majority of Parliament to be enacted into law as well as approval by the people at a referendum to be enacted into law.
The petitioner stated that the Bill is of significant importance in the public interest, in the context of the Court of Appeal Writ Application No. 1661/2003 instituted by the Petitioner, which is still pending settlement from as far back as July 2006 though agreed thereto by Attorney General, for the due and proper enforcement of the Inland Revenue (Regulation of Amnesty) Act No. 10 of 2004, and the provisions of the Inland Revenue Acts.
Such ‘inordinate delay’ and ‘stalling’ of the settlement in CA Writ Application No. 1661/2003 is as a consequence of the Officers of the Inland Revenue Department, having been questionably indifferent and tardy, in agreeing to give undertakings in the Court of Appeal, for the due and proper enforcement of the aforesaid statutory provisions, in terms of a Settlement Motion finalized with the Attorney General, the petition said. |
E-mail