Dear Editor,
I thank you for publishing my letter of 16th July under the heading `Inverter Issue’ in your July 28th issue of SN and seek your further help in correcting the impression given by Mr. Lall that the delay in resolving this matter is caused by my demand that he refunds the VAT.
Since the meeting of 03 June 2010 at the Ministry of Tourism, Industry and Commerce, (The Ministry) with Ms Tinniss and Kennav’s Technician, I have had no direct communication with Mr. Lall’s representatives. The exchanges were between Kennav’s Attorney and the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, Industry and Commerce (PS).
The letter of 17.03. 2012 referred to by Mr. Lall as his last communication to me was sent by his Attorney addressed to the PS and copied to me. That letter offered to refund me 60% of the cost of the inverter (Selling price less VAT) after deducting 30% for repairs and 10% as Re-stocking fee. That letter also stated and I quote “Kindly note that the VAT of $14,208 cannot be refunded by my client since that was collected on behalf of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA). In my comments to the PS on Kennav’s letter of 17.03.2011, I advised the PS “Should it be of any help to you in your consideration of this matter, it is my view that I should not be asked to bear the cost of repairing a defective piece of equipment sold to me. It is also my opinion that the cost of repair stated by Mr ….(the Attorney) is unacceptably high”. It is to be noted that I made no mention of VAT in my comments to the PS.
Mr. Lall’s statement in his comments that his letter of 17.03 2011 is still to be acknowledged by me can at best be considered as most misleading. The correspondence was between his Attorney and the PS. How could Mr Lall expect me to reply to him or his attorney? As stated above, I offered my comments on the letter in question to the PS.
It is also to be noted that in a letter dated 25th November 2011, the PS replied to Kennav’s Attorney’s letter of 17.03.2011 stating that I had accepted the 10% Re stocking fee but asked for a justification of the cost of repair. Please note that it is in this letter that the question of VAT was raised and I quote from the PS’s letter “The Consumer Affairs Division (CAD) of this Ministry on 13th July 2011contacted the GRA and was advised that Kennav HDL should refund the VAT to the consumer and subsequently claim for the refund at the office GRA”.
I am willing to assume that neither Mr. Lall nor his Attorney has seen the PS’s response to Kennav’s letter of 17.03 2011 and it is on account of possibilities of this nature that I am concerned that having had no response to his letter after 8 months and being reminded by me by calls to officers in his Ministry and letters to him I have seen nor heard anything from the Ministry on this matter since the PS’s letter to Kennav of 25th November 2011.
My appreciation and gratitude go out to the Officers of the Consumer Affairs Division who have done as much as they could in this matter. My appeal for help is caused by the frustration of knowing that the supplier has the benefit of his asset available for trading and my cash for use interest free for over two years while I must go seeking help because the State machinery in place to avoid such injustices is not functioning as it should.
Yours faithfully,
Charles Quintin