To a cynic, the reverse logic would appear to be far more sensible. The VAT, after all, has substantive impact on the ordinary people in this country while the question as to whether the executive Presidency would be curtailed is primarily a political question. The related constitutional issue as to whether we would need a referendum or not for this purpose, irrespective of learned discourses on this question, has also taken on a strong political hue. In that context, the Sri Lankan public would be fully justified in letting the politicians fight it out in their own special and unscrupulous way.

For as has been said, whether we have a better balanced executive presidential system or not, the key in having any government work well is to have leaders committed to responsible governance. It is clear now that we do not have such leaders. This, the PA has indisputably shown in its six years of haphazard administration. The UNF appears to be fast following suit with its classic about turn with regard to key governance issues and in its obstinacy in pushing ahead with a constitutional amendment designed to aid an apex constitutional body to set itself up above the law. And so we come back to VAT. What went amiss with its passing is significant for it underscores much that is wrong with the way we chose to be governed. When the Bill was challenged during the short one week period, there were two main arguments that the Consumer Protection Society of Sri Lanka, a rights body engaged in consumer litigation, pursued in the Supreme Court. Firstly, it was argued that, that provision of the Bill which sought to empower the Finance Minister and not Parliament in the task of fixing the rates of the proposed Value Added Tax was unconstitutional inasmuch as it amounted to an abdication of the legislative power in favour of Parliament. In response to this objection, the State, through the Attorney General's Department, formulated an amended clause which more satisfactorily stipulated the rates in the clause itself.

Secondly, the objection was taken up that Clause 20(6) of the Bill was unconstitutional as it offended against Article 12(1) of the Constitution in that suppliers of goods and services were not required to disclose the actual tax component which is to be paid by the consumer when an invoice is issued. This presented a very simple picture.

The consumer would be prevented from knowing what tax was, in fact, paid; which of course, the consumer has a right to know. As was argued, it would open the door to an unscrupulous supplier unconscionably and arbitrarily increasing his profits for goods and services and blaming such increases on the undisclosed value added tax, which in turn would result in an increase in the cost of living, thus nullifying the actual purpose of the Bill. While appearing to concede the above, the Supreme Court has however preferred to take the view, in its Determination, that no question of unconstitutionality was involved. However, the Court explicitly sets down the fact that the State by way of the Attorney General's Department, had accepted that the provision needed amendment and unequivocally agreed to effect an amendment to the impugned provision whereby the supplier, when issuing an invoice, would be required to specifically state the consideration (amount) of such supply separately from the tax charged. It was on this basis that agreement was reached, as evident in the Determination of the Supreme Court as communicated to Parliament and published in the Hansard of July 10.

What we see thereafter is, of course, pure farce if not for the fact that its consequences carry serious implications for ordinary consumers in this country. The Act itself was, meanwhile, available for scrutiny by the public only close upon a month later. And it was only at this delayed point that it was discovered that the second amendment had not been incorporated in the Act. The Consumer Protection Society of Sri Lanka, the petitioner in challenging the VAT Bill, has already written to the Attorney General's Department and the Finance Minister, drawing their attention to the (advertent or inadvertent?) omission and asking for immediate rectification. Whether this request will be taken with the seriousness that it deserves, remains to be seen. In the first instance, the time period within which the Bill was permitted to be challenged, was so short as to make the whole process of changing a taxation regime of a country ludicrous. In the second instance, it is unpardonable that a crucial amendment that was, in fact, suggested and acce-pted to all intents and purposes, was permitted to be disgracefully bypassed in this manner. In the following months, we would possibly experience to our cost, what exactly this means in rupees and cents.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster