[3] At HB4 of the Hearing Bundle. Citations to materials in the Hearing Bundle use the identifiers employed in this and the preceding footnotes and cite to Hearing Bundle pages.

[4] Application for Review, 3 June 2024, HB3, T1. On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('AAT') became the Administrative Review Tribunal ('Tribunal'). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.

[5] Objection Decision, 4 April 2024, HB3, T26; see also the reasons for the Objection Decision ('Reasons for Objection Decision'), also dated 4 April 2024, HB3, T2.

[6] Objection, 14 December 2023, HB3, T23. The Objection was lodged well beyond the prescribed time limit, but the Respondent allowed an extension of time for it to be considered as if it had been lodged on time. Reasons for Objection Decision, HB3, T2, p. 24, [6]-[9].

[7] Penalty Assessment, 17 April 2013, HB3, T21.

[8] As the Respondent's SFIC explains, at HB4, p. 172, [27]-[29] and accompanying footnotes, the Respondent understood Mr. Verma to be objecting to the repayment of the debt that arose as a result of the fraudulent GST refunds paid to Mr. Verma; however, the Respondent deemed such debt to be a non-pursuit debt to which Mr. Verma could not object. The Respondent also noted that Mr. Verma had no right to object to the related General Interest Charges ('GIC'). Thus, the Objection Decision only dealt with Mr. Verma's Objection to the Penalty Assessment. See Respondent's Objection Decision, HB3, T26, pp. 164-165, and Reasons for Objection Decision, HB3, T2, p. 25 at [11]. This issue was discussed with Mr. Verma at a number of pre-hearing case events. Respondent's SFIC, HB4, p. 172, footnote 32.

[10] Audit Interview, 22 November 2012, HB3, T13, p. 75.

[11] Ibid, p. 76; Mr. Verma's letter signed on 29 August 2012, HB3, T14; Objection, HB3, T23, p.155.

[12] See relevant BAS at HB3, T3-T7; bank statements at HB3, T22, pp. 132-133.

[14] HB3, T14, p. 78. The Letter was originally prepared by Mr. Verma for his legal representatives at the time, and was submitted to the Respondent a number of months later as part of the audit process.

[21] Audit Finalisation Letter, 17 April 2013, HB3, T20, p. 111. The shortfall amount, which is not at issue in this case, resulted from the false BAS lodgements that yielded GST refunds actually paid to Mr. Verma as well as claimed GST refunds whose release was stopped as a result of the audit.

[25] MR. Verma's email to Respondent, 16 December 2024, Respondent's SFIC, Annexure H, HB4, p. 195; Mr. Verma's evidence at the Hearing.

[26] Reasons for Objection Decision, HB3, T2, p. 26 at [26].

[29] Mr. Verma only started driving a taxi in mid-2011 and has not claimed that any GST refunds were related thereto (and in any event, he could not reasonably have believed that the amounts involved in his taxi driving activity would support large GST refunds).

[32] ss 284-25, 284-75(1), Schedule 1 to TAA 1953. It is not in dispute that the lodged BAS at issue in this case were false and misleading as to material particulars.

[33] ss 284-85, 284-90, 298-30, Schedule 1 to TAA 1953.

[34] s 284-90(1) Item 1, Schedule 1 to TAA 1953.

[35] See, e.g., SBXB v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] ARTA 999 at [188] and accompanying footnotes_; FLLH v Commissioner of Taxation_ [2025] ARTA 2627 at [331] and accompanying footnotes; WYVW v Commissioner of Taxation [2023] AATA 4242 at [117] ('An intentional disregard of a taxation law will be found where there has been dishonesty; where there has been a cognisant decision, an awareness on the part of the taxpayer, to make a false statement, and to leave that statement uncorrected'); QTWG v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] AATA 2428 at [85] ('[I]f a taxpayer has a shortfall amount as a result of a taxpayer's electing to take a course of action that he or she knows is contrary to a taxation law, that would bring the taxpayer within the scope of Item 1. The same outcome would result if the election were that of the taxpayer's agent and not that of the taxpayer').

[36] Australian Taxation Office, Miscellaneous Taxation Ruling MT 2008/1: Penalty relating to statements: meaning of reasonable care, recklessness, and intentional disregard ('MT 2008/1').

[38] See HB3, T13, p. 76; T14, p. 78; HB2, p. 5.

[40] See Respondent's SFIC, p. 180 at [74]-[76].

[41] Explanatory Memorandum to A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill (no. 2) 2000 (Cth), at [1.62]:

For example, the base penalty amount of 75% would apply to the shortfall amount where a taxpayer or agent deliberately excludes from the taxpayer's assessable income an amount knowing it to be assessable, or deliberately claims a deduction, rebate, credit or offset knowing that it is not allowable.

[42] Australian Taxation Office, Practice Statement Law Administration PS LA 2012/5: Administration of the false or misleading statement penalty - where there is a shortfall amount ('PS LA 2012/5'), Example 7:

Scrooge Company notifies in its activity statement that the GST net amount payable for a period was $25,000. During an examination, the tax officer finds that the company intentionally disregarded a taxation law when it over claimed GST credits by $15,000 and over-claimed other GST credits by $2,000 because of a failure to take reasonable care. The shortfall amount for the period is $17,000 but in order to calculate the penalty, the part-shortfalls of $15,000 and $2,000 respectively will need to be established.

[43] Reasons for Objection Decision, HB3, T2, p. 26 at [26(e)-(f)].

[44] Audit Finalisation Letter, HB3, T20, p. 113.

[45] Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Ross [2021] FCA 766.