GSTBR Appeal No 2 of 2016, decided on 7 June 2017.

Introduction: The case was an application to the Goods and Services Tax Board of Review (“GSTBR”) to determine whether the GSTBR was satisfied that Appellant would otherwise suffer hardship such that the Appellant should be allowed to continue with the appeal notwithstanding that the outstanding tax has not been paid or deposited with the Comptroller.

Relevant Legislation; Section 51(8) of the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117)

Case Facts: Between the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010, the Appellant had claimed input tax of $21,755.38 and the Respondent refunded net input tax of approximately $18,000. The Appellant also reported zero-rated supplies of $333,800 comprising goods that were said to have been exported. Consequent to a tax audit, the Respondent raised assessments totalling $41,229.10 which were disputed by the Appellant who filed his Notice of Appeal on 31 March 2016. However, under s 51(8) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, the appeal would not be heard unless the amount payable as determined by the Respondent was paid or deposited with him; or that the Respondent or the GSTBR decided that the case be heard, on being satisfied that the Appellant would suffer hardship.

The Appellant alleged that he suffered hardship and did not have the means to make payment to the Respondent. However he also argued that he did not have hardship but faced a lot of burdens imposed on him by the Respondent’s Travel Restriction Order and that he did not have access to an ATM card. The Respondent disagreed and argued that the Appellant had not demonstrated that he would face hardship and he may have sources of funds he had not revealed. Further, the Respondent reiterated that the Appellant was unwilling to pay the tax and was unable to substantiate his claim of hardship.

Conclusion: The GSTBR has concluded that they were not persuaded that the Appellant had demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that payment of the sum would cause financial hardship. In the premises, the GSTBR rejected the Appellant’s application.