Tax administration reforms lag revenue gains as Parliament panel flags systemic gaps

Sri Lanka’s improved tax revenue performance has yet to be matched by reforms to the underlying administration system, with a Parliamentary committee flagging continuing gaps in digital infrastructure, data integration, institutional capacity, and coverage of the informal economy.

The Committee on Ways and Means, chaired by MP Wijesiri Basnayake, highlighted the administrative constraints while reviewing the Government’s 2026 tax plan and revenue collection through 30 June, alongside revenue performance by tax category, the existing taxpayer base, and compliance levels.

While noting that recent tax policy reforms and revenue management measures had contributed to improved fiscal stability, the Committee stressed the need to modernise tax administration, broaden the taxpayer base, and strengthen compliance to sustain revenue performance.

The distinction is significant as the focus shifts from raising revenue through tax policy measures towards building an administration capable of widening the tax net and improving collection efficiency.

The Committee identified bringing informal economic activity into the tax system as a key challenge, together with upgrading technology, integrating data across institutions, and developing specialised human resources for tax administration.

It also reviewed progress of the Revenue Administration Management Information System (RAMIS), taxation of digital services, and measures to expand electronic registration, filing, and payment facilities.

The Committee called for greater data sharing among institutions and further development of digital systems, with attention focused on strengthening the RAMIS and integrating Government data systems to improve compliance and administrative efficiency.

Officials from the Finance, Planning and Economic Development Ministry and Inland Revenue Department participated in the discussion.

CASA celebrates Diamond Jubilee with landmark 60th Annual General Meeting

The Ceylon Association of Shipping Agents (CASA) marked a historic milestone with the successful conclusion of its 60th Annual General Meeting (AGM), held on 24 July 2026 at the Grand Marquee, Taj Samudra Colombo.

Celebrating its Diamond Jubilee, the AGM brought together distinguished guests, industry leaders and stakeholders from across Sri Lanka’s maritime, shipping and logistics sectors to commemorate six decades of service, advocacy and excellence.

The event was graced by Ports and Civil Aviation and Energy Minister Anura Karunathilaka, MP, and Sri Lanka Ports Authority Chairman Dr. Parakrama Dissanayake who is also Advisor to President on Maritime, Ports and Logistics, together with senior representatives from Government institutions, port authorities and the private sector. Their presence reaffirmed the strong partnership between the public and private sectors in advancing Sri Lanka’s ambition of becoming a premier maritime and logistics hub in the Indian Ocean.

The AGM marked the conclusion of the highly successful three-year tenure of outgoing Chairman Shano Sabar. Under his leadership, CASA strengthened its position as the unified voice of Sri Lanka’s shipping agency community, championing industry collaboration and maintaining constructive engagement with Government agencies, regulators and stakeholders during a period of significant global shipping transformation. Members expressed their sincere appreciation for his dedication, commitment and exemplary service.

The membership unanimously welcomed Janesh Ratnadasa, Executive Vice President of the Asha Shipping/Pership Group, as Chairman of CASA for the 2026/2027 term. With over 33 years of distinguished experience in Sri Lanka’s shipping and maritime industry, Ratnadasa has built an outstanding career within the Asha Shipping/Pership Group, holding several senior leadership positions. His commitment to CASA extends beyond his corporate responsibilities, having served since 2016 as an Executive Committee Member, Treasurer and Vice Chairman. His extensive industry expertise, proven leadership and unwavering dedication to the Association make him exceptionally well qualified to lead CASA into its next chapter.

Joining him on the new leadership team are Vice Chairman Mushin Kitchilan, Director of Hemas Maritime Ltd., and Treasurer Ananda Senanayake, Managing Director of Lanka Shipping and Logistics Ltd.

In his inaugural address, Ratnadasa thanked the membership for the confidence placed in him and outlined a progressive vision for the future of Sri Lanka’s maritime sector.

He stressed that the industry must move ‘from discussion to implementation’, highlighting the importance of transformative initiatives such as the National Single Window, Maritime Single Window and Port Community System. He reaffirmed CASA’s commitment to working closely with the Government, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, Sri Lanka Customs and all industry stakeholders to strengthen the competitiveness of the Port of Colombo while positioning Sri Lanka as a trusted, integrated and globally competitive maritime and logistics hub. He also underscored the importance of investing in people through education, professional development and youth engagement to develop the next generation of maritime leaders.

One of the highlights of the evening was the official launch of the 23rd edition of Bridge, CASA’s flagship annual publication. Released as part of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, the commemorative edition showcases thought leadership, industry insights and interviews with leading personalities who have helped shape Sri Lanka’s maritime and logistics sectors.

Further reinforcing its commitment to developing future maritime professionals, CASA announced a landmark tripartite partnership with the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (ICS) Sri Lanka Branch and Colombo West International Terminal (CWIT). Under this initiative, eight fully funded annual scholarships will be awarded to eligible CASA students to pursue the internationally recognised ICS UK Foundation Diploma.

The evening also recognised the inaugural scholarship recipients: Hiranya Fernando (Hapag-Lloyd Lanka), M. D. N. C. Rodrigo (MSC Lanka) and Ileesha Perera (Hapag-Lloyd Lanka). The presentation of scholarship certificates reflected CASA’s continued investment in education, professional excellence and the future leadership of Sri Lanka’s maritime industry.

As CASA embarks on its seventh decade, the Association remains steadfast in its mission to champion the interests of the shipping agency community, foster collaboration across the maritime ecosystem and support Sri Lanka’s vision of becoming the leading maritime and logistics hub in the Indian Ocean.

Private sector takes up Mediation Pledge in boost for alternate dispute resolution mechanism

A total of 25 leading companies last week took the ‘Corporate Mediation Pledge’ under a ground breaking initiative of the International ADR Centre (IADRC) boosting the alternate resolution mechanism in the country.

The pledge to consider mediation as their preferred method of resolving disputes was made at a ceremony at the Port City Colombo which reflected a growing movement away from the traditional adversarial nature of litigation and towards a more collaborative approach to resolving commercial disputes.

This shift comes following the introduction of the Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Act No. 13 of 2026, which came into operation in June 2026. The legislation represents an important development in Sri Lanka’s legal system by recognising mediation as a legitimate method of resolving high-value civil and commercial disputes.

For businesses, the introduction of this framework creates a new pathway to resolve commercial disputes in a manner that is confidential, collaborative and focused on achieving practical outcomes. Unlike traditional dispute resolution processes that can often result in prolonged proceedings, mediation enables parties to engage directly, explore mutually acceptable solutions and preserve important commercial relationships that may otherwise be affected by conflict.

Speaking at the ceremony IADRC Sri Lanka Chairman Dr Kanag-Isvaran PC highlighted some of the key advantages mediation can offer businesses compared with litigation. He explained that ‘mediation focuses on interests rather than rights’, allowing the parties themselves to have a greater say in how their dispute is resolved. Rather than having an outcome imposed upon them by a court, mediation gives the parties an opportunity to reach a solution that works for both sides.

This was followed by the Corporation Mediation Pledge, during which representatives from 25 corporations formally signed the pledge. Their participation demonstrated a willingness among Sri Lankan businesses to explore mediation as a practical alternative to litigation and to embrace a different approach to resolving disputes.

Singapore International Mediation Centre Director Siong Koon Sim gave a presentation on the development of mediation in Sri Lanka. He traced its progression from the Mediation Boards Act of 1988 to the introduction of the 2026 legislation, placing Sri Lanka’s development within the wider international movement towards mediation. He also highlighted the growing use of mediation internationally, noting that it can provide a simpler way of resolving disputes while helping to ‘preserve relationships’.

The event also included a panel discussion featuring Siong Koon Sim; Andre Yeap SC, Senior Partner at Rajah and Tann, Singapore; Ang Leong Hao, Partner at Rajah and Tann, Singapore; Nusry Hussain, Counsel at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre; and Ramesh Selvaraj, Partner at Allen and Gledhill, Singapore.

A central theme of the discussion was the practical value of mediation for businesses. The panellists discussed how mediation can be faster and less expensive than litigation, while also giving the parties more control over the eventual outcome. This is particularly important in commercial disputes, where maintaining a business relationship can sometimes be just as important as resolving the dispute itself.

Andre Yeap SC captured this idea when he stated that ‘a reasonable settlement is better than a hard fought battle’. He also referred to the ability of mediation to ‘bridge the gap where the gap can be bridged’. His comments highlighted that reaching a sensible settlement can sometimes be more beneficial than spending significant amounts of time and resources pursuing a lengthy legal battle.

Ramesh Selvaraj similarly described mediation as a ‘safe room’ in which parties can openly discuss their concerns and ideas in a confidential and without-prejudice environment. He explained that mediation is ‘meant to be less formal’ than court proceedings, which gives the parties greater freedom to discuss possible solutions and take responsibility for reaching an outcome.

The discussion also considered the potential impact of mediation on foreign investment. Nusry Hussain pointed out that reducing the costs and risks associated with commercial disputes could make Sri Lanka more attractive to foreign investors. Greater confidence in the country’s dispute-resolution framework could therefore have implications beyond individual disputes and contribute to the wider business environment.

The Corporate Mediation Pledge Ceremony was supported by The Asia Foundation, with Colombo Port City serving as the venue partner.

Private borrowing up 27% YoY to Rs. 11.3 t in 1H

Private sector borrowing from the banking system accelerated in June, with total outstanding credit increasing by Rs. 245.3 billion month-on-month (MoM) to Rs. 11.28 trillion, extending the rebound recorded in May. On a year-on-year (YoY) basis, private sector credit grew by 27.4%, compared with 27.8% in May.

According to the latest Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) data, total outstanding banking sector credit to the private sector rose to Rs. 11.28 trillion in June from Rs. 11.04 trillion in May, reflecting a 2.2% MoM increase.

The continued expansion came after the CBSL raised monetary policy rates by 100 basis points (bps) in the last week of May, the first increase since March 2023, taking the Overnight Policy Rate (OPR) to 8.75%. The Standing Deposit Facility Rate (SDFR) and Standing Lending Facility Rate (SLFR), linked to the OPR with predetermined margins of ±50 bps, were increased to 8.25% and 9.25%, respectively.

The rate increase was aimed at containing credit-driven import demand after pressure on the rupee intensified in May amid the Middle East conflict.

The rupee, which had depreciated 1.4% year-to-date (YTD) by end-March and 2.9% by end-April, ended 7.6% weaker against the US dollar as of 7 August.

Lending by Domestic Banking Units (DBUs) continued to account for the bulk of private sector credit, increasing by Rs. 229.8 billion, or 2.2% MoM, to Rs. 10.7 trillion in June from Rs. 10.47 trillion in May. On a YoY basis, DBU lending grew by 29.6%, compared with 30.2% in May.

Credit extended through Offshore Banking Units (OBUs) increased by Rs. 10.4 billion, or 1.8% MoM, to Rs. 579.2 billion in June from Rs. 568.8 billion in May. Despite the monthly increase, OBU credit remained 3.4% below its year-earlier level, compared with a 4.3% YoY contraction in May.

In contrast to private sector borrowing, net credit to the Government from the banking system declined by Rs. 159.5 billion, or 2% MoM, to Rs. 8 trillion in June from Rs. 8.16 trillion in May. On a YoY basis, Government credit contracted by 5.8%, widening from a 3.4% contraction in May.

Net credit to the Government from the CBSL fell by Rs. 94.2 billion, or 5.3% MoM, to Rs. 1.7 trillion, while credit from commercial banks declined by Rs. 65.2 billion, or 1%, to Rs. 6.3 trillion.

Within commercial banks, Government credit from DBUs declined by Rs. 55.4 billion to Rs. 6.22 trillion, while OBU credit fell by Rs. 9.8 billion to Rs. 82.2 billion. On a YoY basis, DBU credit to the Government contracted by 5.8%, while OBU credit increased by 18.6%.

Outstanding credit to public corporations and State-owned business enterprises rose by Rs. 16.1 billion, or 3.3% MoM, to Rs. 509.6 billion in June from Rs. 493.5 billion in May. However, outstanding credit remained 20% below the level recorded a year earlier.

DBU lending to public corporations increased by Rs. 10.8 billion to Rs. 429 billion, but was down 26.5% YoY. OBU lending rose by Rs. 5.3 billion to Rs. 80.6 billion and was 52.7% higher YoY.

The CBSL data also showed broad money (M2b) expanded by 11.5% YoY in June, easing from 12% in May. M2 growth moderated to 11.2% from 11.9%, while reserve money growth slowed to 13.8% from 16.1%.

AI’s next big promise: Tackle inequity issues before using it

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been hailed as the next big promise for the prosperity and modernity of the global economy.

Today, this groundbreaking technology is rapidly reshaping almost every sphere of human activity. In education, AI acts as an interactive assistant, adapting lessons to individual student needs and making learning more interactive. In healthcare, it analyses complex medical data to help doctors diagnose diseases faster and more accurately than ever before. Governments use it to streamline public services, while businesses and management teams rely on it to optimise supply chains, predict market trends, and automate routine tasks.

By processing vast amounts of data in seconds, AI significantly improves human performance, opening up a future that feels both exciting and full of endless possibilities.

However, beneath this brilliant promise lies a serious challenge that we cannot afford to ignore. While AI offers immense benefits, it also brings a critical shortcoming: what can be called the “AI Divide.” This term describes a growing gap in society where some individuals, companies, and nations have easy access to this powerful tool, while many others are completely left behind. Because of this divide, the benefits of AI are not shared equally, threatening to worsen existing global inequalities rather than solve them.

Three problems with the AI Divide

This AI Divide creates three major problems across the globe.

First, there is the Corporate Gap, in which AI does not improve productivity evenly across the entire economy. It primarily helps big corporations that possess the deep financial resources needed to invest in advanced software and hire expensive tech experts.

These large firms become hyper-efficient and highly profitable. In contrast, small and medium enterprises, which form the backbone of local communities, cannot afford these high costs. Left without AI tools, small businesses struggle to compete, creating an unfair marketplace where the big get bigger and the small are forced out.

Second, even in the global economy, there persists a gap which can be termed the Global Gap. AI does not help all countries grow together. Developing nations often lack the digital infrastructure, reliable electricity, and tech-trained workforce required to build and implement AI systems.

Consequently, wealthy nations with advanced tech ecosystems grow at an accelerated pace, while poorer nations lag further behind. Instead of closing the global wealth gap, AI is expanding it, deepening the rift between the developed and developing worlds.

Third, society is also crippled by a gap that can be called the Social Divide. This divide hits the most vulnerable groups within a single nation, leading to a highly uneven income distribution. AI ownership concentrates wealth in the hands of capital owners-the tech executives and investors-who see their profits skyrocket.

Meanwhile, everyday workers face job displacement or stagnant wages as automation replaces routine tasks. This shifts economic power away from labor and toward capital, widening the gap between the rich and the poor inside the borders of a nation.

To prevent this unequal future, we need urgent global action. AI should not be a luxury tool owned by a wealthy few. Instead, all nations must collaborate to produce and manage AI as a “Global Public Good.” By sharing AI knowledge, creating fair standards, and funding accessible technology, the international community can ensure that this new era lifts all of humanity rather than a privileged minority.

Historical dividends and speed of AI

The challenges we face with AI are not entirely new. Throughout human history, whenever a major technological breakthrough occurred, it reshaped society and the global economy in the exact same pattern. Every revolutionary tool initially created a “divide”-a period where a wealthy minority reaped the benefits while the majority waited on the sidelines.

We can see this cycle clearly across modern history:

First, the Electricity Divide: When electricity was first harnessed, it was a luxury reserved for rich factories and affluent urban homes, leaving rural areas in the dark.

Second, the Electronics Divide: The discovery of electronics and automated manufacturing initially boosted only the most advanced industrialised economies.

Third, the Digital Divide: The rise of computers and the internet created a massive gap between those who could afford digital tools and those who could not.

Historically, closing these gaps took several decades. It required deep societal adaptation, active Government intervention, and international cooperation. A perfect example of this is Sri Lanka’s journey with electricity. In the early 20th century, only a privileged few in major cities had access to power lines.

However, through persistent domestic policies and vital aid programs from multilateral lending institutions like the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and generous donor nations, the country built its national grid. Today, nearly every citizen in Sri Lanka enjoys the fruits of electricity. History proves that with enough time, public funding, and global aid, technological gaps can be narrowed, if not eliminated.

However, we cannot simply wait for history to repeat itself with AI. The critical difference today is speed. Past innovations like electricity or the internet evolved over generations, giving governments and workers decades to train, adapt, and build infrastructure. In stark contrast, AI is evolving at an exponential, dizzying pace. Changes that used to take decades are now happening in months.

Because AI moves so fast, societies left behind today face a much harsher reality. Vulnerable people and developing countries cannot simply “catch up” on their own; they are being locked out of AI platforms before they even understand how to use them. The digital gap is widening faster than schools can write textbooks or governments can build server systems.

This extreme urgency creates a new ethical duty.

The wealthy nations that currently build, own, and profit from AI cannot afford to isolate their technology. To prevent a permanent global underclass, advanced economies must proactively provide financial aid, technical knowledge, and infrastructure support to emerging nations. Just as global aid once brought electricity to the developing world, a new wave of international support must now help emerging countries build their own AI systems and secure their place in the modern world.

Need for global, united action

Recognising the gravity of the growing technology gap, world leaders have begun speaking out about the dangers of a fractured digital world. A major milestone in this discussion occurred recently at the 2026 World AI Conference in Shanghai. During his opening keynote address, Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed the audience with a warning against allowing “new historical injustices” to form through unequal access to artificial intelligence.

To combat this, President Xi announced that China is ready to step up and support the developing world. He stated that China will provide 5,000 artificial intelligence training and seminar opportunities over the next five years to developing nations.

Furthermore, China plans to establish specialised international AI application cooperation centers, directly partnering with major economic blocs, including BRICS, ASEAN, the African Union, and the League of Arab States. This initiative aims to equip emerging economies with the training, technology, and adaptation tools necessary to build their own technical foundations as they navigate the remainder of the decade.

While the international community should warmly welcome China’s commitment, we must honestly recognise that a move by a single nation cannot solve the AI Divide on a permanent basis. China is only one country developing its own proprietary AI ecosystem.

For a global challenge of this magnitude, individual actions are simply not enough. Other major powers at the absolute forefront of the AI race-such as the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Japan-must join this cooperative effort early.

If these powerful nations act entirely on their own, it will lead to massive inefficiencies. We would likely see a wasteful duplication of resources, with multiple countries building competing, incompatible systems in the same regions. Furthermore, decentralised aid easily becomes “supply-driven,” meaning wealthy nations hand down the tools they want to give away, rather than providing what vulnerable communities actually need.

Most dangerous of all is the risk of geopolitical favoritism. Left to individual nations, AI tools will be distributed based on political alliances and strategic loyalty rather than true humanitarian need, leaving the most vulnerable populations completely cut off.

Therefore, the world urgently needs to establish a unified Global Action Group for AI. This international body would coordinate efforts among all tech-heavy nations to distribute AI tools, data infrastructure, and training resources equitably across the globe.

Rather than relying on temporary charity, this group must explore sustainable ways to weave AI knowledge permanently into the domestic technological foundations of developing countries. Only through a coordinated, global symphony of cooperation can we transform AI from a tool of geopolitical division into a lasting public asset for all of humanity.

Choosing right vehicle for global action

To bring a truly fair AI ecosystem to life, we must carefully choose the international vehicle that will drive it. The most obvious candidate for creating a Global Action Group is the United Nations (UN).

As the world’s premier forum for international cooperation, the UN possesses an unmatched global reach, a deep commitment to human rights, and established bodies like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). In a perfect scenario, the UN would be the ideal home for this initiative. It has the unique ability to bring all 193 member states to the same table to draft ethical boundaries and champion digital inclusion for every corner of the planet.

However, we must be entirely realistic about the severe limitations of the UN system. In recent decades, the UN has repeatedly failed to prevent or resolve devastating regional conflicts. This paralysis is primarily due to the veto power held by a few dominant nations in the UN Security Council.

When global powers are locked in intense geopolitical competition, the veto mechanism is frequently used to protect national interests rather than global welfare. Because AI is currently viewed as the ultimate tool for future economic and military supremacy, a UN-led AI group would almost certainly get bogged down by these same political rivalries. A single veto could block progress, leaving the initiative toothless and incapable of moving at the lightning-fast speed that AI technology demands.

Given this gridlock, we must look beyond the traditional UN political framework. To bypass paralysing political vetoes, we need to marshal the initiatives of global financial and development institutions. Organisations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and regional development banks-such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the African Development Bank-are far better suited for this operational task. These institutions possess the financial muscle, project management experience, and technical expertise required to build actual infrastructure on the ground.

Rather than focusing on political debates, a coalition of these financial giants can treat AI access as a vital economic development issue. They can tie AI infrastructure funding directly to economic development loans, ensure transparent resource distribution, and fund large-scale educational programs to train local workforces. By shifting the responsibility from a highly politicised UN assembly to results-driven global development institutions, we can create a practical, agile Global Action Group. This approach ensures that aid is distributed based on real human and economic needs, rather than the geopolitical games of powerful nations.

Roadmap for universal inequity mitigation

To turn AI’s promise into a shared human victory, the proposed Global Action Group cannot rely on vague promises or open-ended goals. It must immediately design and implement a strict, time-bound roadmap and a concrete action plan. The primary objective of this plan must be clear: to transform AI technology from an exclusive luxury of wealthy corporations and nations into an inclusive utility accessible to all.

Because AI technology evolves at a staggering pace, this action plan cannot be a rigid document locked in time. Instead, it must be a living strategy, regularly reviewed and dynamically modified to meet emerging technological breakthroughs and unpredictable economic shifts.

To ensure accountability and measure true progress, the global community needs a standardised method to track how effectively AI is being distributed. A highly practical approach would be to classify the nations of the world according to their AI applications and literacy. This system would mirror the trusted economic classifications used by the World Bank, categorising countries into four distinct tiers:

First, High AI: Nations leading development with widespread, highly advanced integration across all economic sectors.

Second, Medium AI: Countries with stable digital infrastructure making steady progress in adopting automated systems.

Third, Emerging AI: Developing nations starting to integrate basic technologies but facing significant training gaps.

Fourth, Low AI: Vulnerable regions with minimal infrastructure, heavily at risk of complete digital exclusion.

By publishing these rankings in an annual global report, the international community will clearly highlight the leaders and the laggards of the tech era. This yearly index will create healthy competition, guide development institutions on exactly where to direct funding, and prevent wealthy nations from ignoring the poorest regions.

Ultimately, without a structured, measurable, and adaptable plan, even a well-intentioned global action group will see its resources wasted.

We stand at a critical crossroads in human history. If we do not actively tackle these severe inequity issues before completely weaving AI into the fabric of the global economy, we will create a deeply divided world that is impossible to fix. By treating AI knowledge as a global public good and holding nations accountable through a clear roadmap, we can ensure that the next big promise of technology lifts up every human being, leaving absolutely no one behind in the dark.

Getting the new Quarterly Tax Instalment formula right

On 6 August 2026, the Inland Revenue Department issued Circular No. SEC/2026/E/06 (Revised), replacing a version issued just three days earlier. The revised circular provides detailed guidance on calculating quarterly income tax instalments under Section 90 of the Inland Revenue Act, No. 24 of 2017, as amended by Act No. 11 of 2026

It applies from Year of Assessment 2026/2027 onward, and, in the Department’s own words, to ‘subsequent years of assessment’ as well, making it a document worth keeping close at hand well beyond this single tax year.

For a document that is, at its core, one algebraic formula and a set of worked examples, the circular carries outsized consequences.

Getting the arithmetic right, and meeting each of the four dates on the calendar, is not an academic exercise. It is a cash-flow planning necessity for every company, partnership, and high earning individual who falls within the instalment net.

This article works through the circular method by method, translating the statutory formula into plain language.

The four dates that do not move

Section 90 fixes four instalment dates for every year of assessment, and the revised circular restates them unchanged:

First instalment – on or before 15 August of the year of assessment

Second instalment – on or before 15 November of the year of assessment

Third instalment – on or before 15 February of the year of assessment

Fourth instalment – on or before 15 May of the next succeeding year of assessment

For most instalment payers reading this now, the pressing date is 15 August, the first instalment for Year of Assessment 2026/2027 falls due this month.

The formula, in plain English

Every instalment, whatever method is used to arrive at it, is ultimately computed using one formula: (A – C) ÷ B

It looks deceptively simple, and it is, provided each component is understood

correctly.

A is the gross income tax payable on the taxable income of the immediately preceding year of assessment. Note the word ‘gross’: this is the tax computed before any tax credits, withholding tax, or reliefs are deducted. For an instalment falling within Year of Assessment 2026/2027, A is drawn from the finalised tax computation for 2025/2026.

B is the number of instalments still remaining for the year, counting the one currently being calculated. It therefore changes through the year:

B is 4 for the August instalment, 3 for November, 2 for February, and 1 for May.

This declining divisor is what allows the total annual liability to be spread evenly across whichever instalments remain, rather than forcing the full amount onto whichever payment happens to be due.

C is the running total of tax already secured for the year as at the due date of the instalment in question. It picks up three things: any instalments already paid earlier in the year, Withholding Tax (WHT) or Advance Income Tax (AIT) already deducted (or reasonably expected to be deducted) at source, and any foreign tax credit available under Section 80 of the Act.

In effect, C prevents a taxpayer from being made to pay twice over on income that has already suffered tax elsewhere in the system.

Method 1: The default rule for almost everyone

If a taxpayer had taxable income in the immediately preceding year of assessment, Method 1, the Standard Basis, is not optional. It is the mandatory starting point, and the circular is explicit that a taxpayer who qualifies to use it is barred from reaching for any of the alternative methods discussed further below. The mechanics are best seen through the circular’s own illustrations.

a) Mr. X, a hardware shop owner

His total assessable income for 2025/2026 was Rs. 3,800,000. After his personal relief of Rs. 1,800,000, taxable income came to Rs. 2,000,000, and applying the progressive personal tax bands (6%, 18% and 24% across the relevant slabs) produced a gross tax liability of Rs. 270,000. With no withholding credits available, his first instalment is (270,000 – 0) ÷ 4 = Rs. 67,500, due on or before 15 August 2026.

b) Liquor Ltd., a spirits

manufacturer

For 2025/2026, the company’s taxable income of Rs. 1,653 million comprised Rs. 1,647 million of liquor-manufacturing profit, taxed at the sector-specific 45% rate, and Rs. 6 million of investment income taxed at 30%.

That produced a combined gross tax of Rs. 742,950,000. With AIT credits of Rs. 880,000 already available, the first instalment works out to (742,950,000 – 880,000) ÷ 4 = Rs. 185,517,500.

Two compliance points are worth flagging for anyone using this method.

First, no supporting computation needs to be filed with the Commissioner-General upfront, the burden of getting the number right sits entirely with the taxpayer, and any underpayment discovered later attracts interest and penalties calculated against the standard-basis figure regardless of intention.

Second, and as already noted, eligibility for the Standard Basis is not a choice between methods, it closes the door on Method 2 entirely (unless approval is obtained for a mid-year change of basis).

Method 2: When last year doesn’t reflect this year

The Standard Basis assumes income moves in a straight line from one year to the next. Real businesses rarely oblige, so the circular carves out an Alternative Basis for taxpayers who meet either of two gateway conditions: they had no taxable income at all in the immediately preceding year, or they can reasonably project that this year’s taxable income will be lower than last year’s.

Four distinct scenarios sit under this umbrella.

Scenario I – no income last year, none expected this year

Where losses carried forward are heavy enough that a business genuinely expects to report no taxable income again this year, A is simply treated as zero and no instalment is payable. The relief is not automatic, however: the taxpayer must still file a formal declaration on the prescribed form, Attachment 1, setting out the position.

Scenario II – moving from zero to positive income

This applies where a taxpayer had no taxable income last year, but this year expects to turn a profit, typically because carried-forward losses have finally been absorbed, or a tax holiday has expired.

Here, A cannot simply be zero. Instead, the taxpayer must reconstruct last year’s figures as if the losses or exemptions that shielded them had never applied, and calculate what the gross tax would have been on that reconstructed basis, using current tax rates.

Two worked examples in the circular illustrate this well.

ABC Ltd., a biscuit manufacturer, had brought-forward losses of Rs. 526,000 (figures in the circular are stated in thousands) that fully absorbed its 2025/2026 business income, leaving a further Rs. 24,000 (again, in thousands) of loss still available to carry forward. Stripping out the loss set-off that applied last year, the company’s reconstructed taxable income for instalment purposes comes to Rs. 478 million, generating a gross tax of Rs. 143.4 million at the 30% corporate rate.

Its first instalment, after a withholding credit of Rs. 1.2 million, is (143,400,000 – 1,200,000) ÷ 4 = Rs. 35,550,000.

XYZ Ltd., which develops software for the foreign market and has enjoyed a Board of Investment income tax exemption through 2025/2026, faces the same logic from the opposite direction.

With the exemption expiring, its Rs. 44 million of previously tax-free profit becomes taxable at the applicable 15% concessionary rate, producing a gross tax of Rs. 6.6 million and a first instalment of Rs. 1,650,000.

Both companies, having used this reconstruction, are required to submit Attachment 1 to substantiate their

working.

Scenario III – income continuing, but expected to fall

Where a taxpayer did have taxable income last year but reasonably expects a materially lower figure this year, because of a genuine decline in business, higher expenditure, or reduced investment income, the circular allows the prior year’s tax to be recalculated with the income streams that are not expected to recur stripped out.

Supporting calculations must again accompany Attachment 1.

UVW Ltd., lost 42% of its business with a major customer during 2025/2026 but expects some of that revenue to be replaced by a new client, and has also withdrawn fixed deposits generating a large share of its interest income.

After adjusting for a 27% net reduction in business income and an 80% reduction in investment income, the company’s reconstructed taxable income comes to Rs. 427,580,000, and the gross tax on that figure, at 30%, is Rs. 128,274,000.

Applying the formula as written, the first instalment should be (128,274,000 – 0) ÷ 4, which comes to Rs. 32,068,500.

Scenario IV – newly registered

taxpayers

A person or company that has just obtained a Taxpayer Identification Number has, by definition, no preceding year of assessment to draw on. The circular permits these taxpayers to estimate their taxable income for their first operational year and apply current rates to that projection, but only for that first year. From the second year of assessment onward, they fall into the Standard Basis like everyone else.

New registrants using this estimation privilege must submit Attachment 2 rather than Attachment 1.

Method 3: The safe harbour of last resort

Some situations genuinely defy estimation , unusual market disruption, force majeure, or a restructuring too complex to model within the alternative bases above. For these edge cases, the circular provides a final safe harbour: a formal written petition, addressed not to the local regional office but directly to the Commissioner – Tax Policy and Legislation Unit, acting on behalf of the Commissioner-General, seeking to use some other reasonable method tailored to the taxpayer’s circumstances.

This is clearly intended as an exception rather than a routine option, and taxpayers should expect it to be applied sparingly.

The paperwork that keeps the numbers honest

Getting the calculation right is only half the compliance exercise; documenting it correctly is the other half.

For Component C , the credits reducing each instalment , the circular asks taxpayers to file a Credit Schedule in the prescribed format with the Central Document Management Unit, the Metro Office, or the relevant Regional Office. The filing deadline tracks the instalment calendar, falling due at the end of the month in which each instalment is payable: 31 August, 30 November, 28 or 29 February, and 31 May.

For taxpayers using either of the alternative estimation methods under Method 2, Attachment 1 or Attachment 2 must reach the CDMU, Metro Office, or relevant Regional Office by 15 August of the year in which the first instalment for that year falls due, in effect, the same date as the first instalment itself.

Relief for salaried employees and passive-income earners

Not everyone earning income needs to navigate this machinery. The circular preserves, and usefully clarifies, an important carve-out for employees.

Where an individual’s income is derived solely from employment and is fully captured through Advance Personal Income Tax deducted by the employer, no quarterly instalments and no credit schedule are required at all.

The relief extends further: an employee who also earns rental or interest income subject to AIT withholding remains exempt from instalments and credit-schedule filing, provided the AIT withheld on that passive income is sufficient to cover the remaining tax liability for the year. This specific relief applies to employees whose APIT is computed under APIT Table 8.

Mrs. P, the circular’s example, illustrates the boundary neatly.

Her projected gross tax liability for 2026/2027 is Rs. 1,032,000, calculated on employment and interest income.

Her employer’s expected APIT deductions of Rs. 960,000, combined with AIT of Rs. 90,000 on her interest income, add up to Rs. 1,050,000 , comfortably more than her total liability. Because her withheld credits already exceed what she owes, she is not required to make any instalment payment, nor to file the monthly credit schedule.

Employees in a similar position, whose withholding at source already covers their expected liability, can take genuine comfort from this example.

Two further technical points

worth knowing.

(a) Foreign tax credits

A person estimating A for instalment purposes may take into account a foreign tax credit available under Section 80 of the Act, but only where the foreign tax has already been paid, or is reasonably expected to be paid, during the year. Credits that are merely theoretical or contingent cannot be built into the calculation.

(b) Alternative accounting periods

Taxpayers who, with the Commissioner-General’s approval, prepare accounts on a 12-month period that does not align with the standard year of assessment are not exempted from any of the above, the same specifications apply to them without modification.

Mid-year revisions: A safety valve for the standard basis

Perhaps the most practically useful provision in the circular, for businesses that start the year on the Standard Basis and then see conditions deteriorate, is the mid-year revision mechanism. A taxpayer paying instalments under Method 1 who comes to reasonably expect that this year’s taxable income will fall below last year’s is not locked into the higher standard-basis figure for the rest of the year. They may notify the CDMU, together with supporting information, and move onto Method 2 or Method 3 for the remaining instalments.

The notification deadlines are, once again, tightly defined, the last day of the month preceding the relevant instalment due date:

To revise the November instalment – notify by 31 October

To revise the February instalment – notify by 31 January

To revise the May instalment – notify by 30 April

There is no equivalent revision window for the August instalment itself, which underlines the importance of getting the initial Standard Basis computation right, or of qualifying for Method 2 from the outset if the taxpayer’s circumstances genuinely warrant it.

Conclusion

Circular SEC/2026/E/06 (Revised) is, in substance, an attempt to bring predictability to a system that depends on taxpayers estimating their own liability months before the relevant year of assessment closes. The Standard Basis gives the Department the cash-flow certainty it wants; the alternative bases, the reconstruction protocols for expiring losses and exemptions, and the Method 3 safe harbour together acknowledge that businesses do not always move in straight lines.

For taxpayers and their advisors, the practical discipline this circular calls for is threefold: track Component A accurately from the prior year’s finalised computation; keep Component C, every withholding certificate, instalment receipt, and foreign tax credit, properly documented and ready to support the Credit Schedule; and treat the four statutory dates as immovable, because the consequence of missing one is immediate default status rather than a grace period.

Trusting each other’s strengths was the key – Galle Gallants head coach Pubudu

Galle Gallants stuck to their motto – Brave by Nature, when they became only the second team in Lanka Premier League (LPL) history to stop the dominance of Jaffna Kings when they beat them by five wickets in the final to win the sixth edition of the tournament at the R Premadasa Cricket Stadium on Saturday.

B-Love Kandy were the first team to stop the Jaffna Kings juggernaut when they won the title in 2023, but Jaffna managed to win it back in 2024 for the fourth time making them the most successful team in the competition.

Captained by former Sri Lanka white ball skipper Dasun Shanaka, Galle Gallants were fourth time lucky after being the losing finalist in three previous occasions to Jaffna Kings in 2020, 2021 and 2024. In the first two occasions Galle then known as Galle Gladiators was captained by Bhanuka Rajapaksa and in 2024 going as Galle Marvels by Niroshan Dickwella. For Rajapaksa who led Jaffna Kings this year it was the third defeat as captain in an LPL final.

‘Playing as a team and having that friendly atmosphere to perform and trusting each other’s strengths was the key,’ was how Galle Gallants’ head coach Pubudu Dassanayake described the win.

‘We played aggressive cricket throughout regardless of whatever the result we got. We lost Qualifier 1 to Jaffna Kings by 14 runs chasing 243, but that was our strength and it worked.’

Galle Gallants were able to contain the Jaffna Kings batting in the first powerplay keeping them down to 41-2 through their spinners and continued to keep a tight leash on them right throughout the innings to bowl them out for 123 with three balls still remaining.

‘The wicket was slightly drier than the previous ones we played on and we knew that it was going to grip a little bit. But still, it was a good batting pitch,’ said Dassanayake.

Asked how Galle Gallants managed to break the stranglehold Jaffna Kings had in the tournament Dassanayake replied, ‘I don’t know about the past but the players we had this year were good. The key to everything else was that we had a good environment group to get the best out of everyone. All of them played as a unit. They were treated well and everyone gave their 100 percent. That was the difference.’

Dassanayake credited his support staff for ensuring none of the players got injured during a tightly packed schedule.

‘The tournament schedule was tough, we had several back to back games but all credit to our staff especially the medical staff, physios and trainers. We sat down and we had a good plan to make sure that no one got injured. Basically, if I am not wrong all the teams struggled with their fitness. I thought we managed ours pretty well that we didn’t have a single injury.’

Since turning to cricket coaching after representing Sri Lanka in 11 Tests and 16 ODIs as a wicket-keeper/batsman between 1993 and 1994, 56-year-old Dassanayake coached DS Senanayake and Bloomfield briefly before migrating to Canada where he had a successful run helping USA and Nepal qualify for the ICC T20 World Cup and Canada for the ICC Cricket World Cup, and also seeing all three countries gaining ODI status. Prior to handling Galle Gallants in the LPL he coached Janakpur Bolts to win the Nepal Premier League.

‘My strength is I always try to bring players together and try to get the best out of them. Sometimes it doesn’t show in the bigger picture, but I think it has a huge impact on winning.’

Relating how he came to coach Galle Gallants, Dassanayake said, ‘I am the head coach of the USA. The owners of Galle Gallants are also from the USA (Gallant Sports and Media LLC based in Florida, USA). They asked me whether I can spend time with Galle Gallants by taking over as coach. I was not sure whether USA Cricket would give me permission to undertake that role, but at the last minute they said okay and to go ahead.’

From 2025 Dassanayake is on a three-year contract with USA as their head coach. Although USA Cricket is currently suspended it is run by an ICC appointed body and they are allowed to participate in all international tournaments.

Galle Gallants collected $150,000 as champions, Jaffna Kings $100,000 as runner-up while individual awards were won by Charith Asalanka ($1,500 as Player of the Final), Kamil Mishara ($10,000 as Player of the Tournament) and Traveen Mathew (Rover Scrambler motorbike as Best Emerging Player).

Clock ticking on GSP+: Why Sri Lanka must act now

The European Union (EU) is one of Sri Lanka’s most valuable trading partners. This market supports billions of dollars in exports, thousands of businesses, and hundreds of thousands of jobs. It buys Sri Lankan apparel, rubber products, tea, and seafood. Much of this success relies on the Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+). This scheme grants Sri Lanka duty-free access for many products.

The trade landscape is now changing. The India-EU Free Trade Agreement concluded in January 2026, marking a major shift in South Asian trade. Once active, Indian exports will gain better access to Europe. This increases competition for countries exporting similar goods. For Sri Lanka, this shift comes at a critical time. The country must apply to renew GSP+ before the current deal ends in late 2027. The outcome will shape Sri Lanka’s export competitiveness for years.

The EU takes about 24% of the country’s total merchandise exports, making it one of Sri Lanka’s largest export destinations. In 2025, bilateral trade in goods reached around pound 3.9 billion. Sri Lankan exports accounted for nearly pound 3.3 billion of that total. This trade creates a steady surplus and brings in vital foreign exchange.

Sri Lanka’s exports to Europe focus on a few key sectors. Apparel dominates, making up almost half of all EU exports. Other major exports include rubber products, tea, spices, seafood, electronics, and jewellery. These industries depend heavily on European demand. They also support employment across the country.

Export earnings boost foreign exchange reserves and drive industrial production. They also sustain thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises in export supply chains. As Sri Lanka recovers economically, strong access to European markets is crucial.

Why GSP+ matters

GSP+ is more than a trade preference. It gives Sri Lankan exporters a key competitive edge by allowing duty-free access. This lowers prices for European buyers. It also makes Sri Lankan goods more attractive than competitors paying normal tariffs.

The scheme is vital for the apparel industry. Without GSP+, Sri Lankan garments would face EU tariffs of around 12%. This would raise prices and cut competitiveness. Similar advantages apply to rubber, fisheries, and processed agricultural goods.

Sri Lankan exports are eligible for and utilise GSP+ in the following ways:

Over 80% of Sri Lankan exports to the EU qualify for GSP+.

About 85% of exports entered the EU duty-free under the scheme in 2024.

Around 69% actively used GSP+ preferences to stay competitive.

For many Sri Lankan exporters, GSP+ is embedded in their business model. It allows them to price products competitively, maintain long-term relationships with European buyers, and compete in sectors where even small tariff differences can influence purchasing decisions.

Where Sri Lanka stands today

Sri Lanka regained GSP+ status in 2017 after committing to implement 27 international conventions covering human rights, labour standards, environmental protection, and good governance. Since then, the European Commission has regularly monitored the country’s progress through periodic reviews and monitoring missions.

As of 2026, Sri Lanka is preparing its application for the next GSP+ cycle, which must be submitted before the March 2027 deadline. The current arrangement will expire on 31 December 2027.

The EU has signalled a generally positive outlook towards Sri Lanka’s renewal. However, continued eligibility will depend on the country’s progress in implementing its commitments under the 27 international conventions.

Several reform areas remain under close scrutiny. Reform of counter-terrorism legislation continues to receive significant attention with the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act expected to be assessed against international human rights standards. The EU has also raised concerns regarding amendments to the Online Safety Act and their implications for freedom of expression.

Labour rights remain another important consideration, particularly freedom of association and collective bargaining within export processing zones. At the same time, judicial independence, governance reforms, transitional justice commitments, and compliance with environmental conventions continue to form part of the broader assessment.

Although Sri Lanka has maintained constructive engagement with the European Union, the pace and quality of these reforms will play a decisive role in determining the country’s future eligibility.

A new challenge: The India-EU trade agreement

Renewing GSP+ is a priority, but a new challenge has emerged. The India-EU Free Trade Agreement will transform regional trade.

Sri Lanka and India export similar goods to Europe. These include apparel, rubber, seafood, agricultural products, and manufactured items. Lower tariffs for India will give its producers a sharp edge in Sri Lanka’s key market.

The challenge goes beyond tariffs. India has a larger manufacturing base, lower production costs, and greater economies of scale. It also boasts stronger logistics and higher foreign investment. Easy European market access will reinforce these strengths.

Sri Lanka will not lose its market presence overnight. The country retains a strong reputation for ethical apparel, premium tea, quality rubber, and high standards. However, competition is growing tougher.

Securing another GSP+ cycle should remain Sri Lanka’s immediate priority, but it cannot be the country’s only trade strategy.

Improving competitiveness will require continued investment in productivity, technology, innovation, and value addition. The apparel industry can strengthen its position by expanding sustainable and high-value manufacturing while continuing to uphold strong labour standards and workers’ rights. Similarly, Sri Lanka’s tea industry can build on its reputation for quality by pairing stronger labour conditions across the plantation sector. Demonstrating compliance with international labour standards is not only important for GSP+ renewal but can also enhance Sri Lanka’s reputation among increasingly sustainability-conscious European consumers and buyers.

At the same time, Sri Lanka should diversify export markets beyond Europe by strengthening commercial links with East Asia, the Gulf region, and North America. Reducing dependence on any single export destination will improve resilience against future changes in global trade policies.

The country should also explore the long-term feasibility of negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with the European Union. While preference schemes such as GSP+ provide important short-term advantages, a comprehensive trade agreement could offer greater certainty for exporters over the longer term.

Sri Lanka’s GSP+ renewal arrives at a defining moment. The country is emerging from its worst economic crisis in decades while facing an increasingly competitive global trading environment. The India – EU Free Trade Agreement has changed the regional landscape and raised the stakes for Sri Lankan exporters.

Renewing GSP+ will remain essential for protecting export earnings, foreign exchange, and employment. Yet maintaining preferential access alone will not be enough. Sri Lanka must also accelerate reforms, strengthen competitiveness, and prepare for a future in which regional competition will only intensify.

The next 18 months will therefore be about far more than securing another trade preference. They will determine whether Sri Lanka can preserve its position in one of its most important export markets while adapting to a rapidly changing global economy.

1H Budget posts Rs. 9.5 b surplus despite sharp fall in June

Sri Lanka ended the first half of 2026 with an overall Budget surplus of Rs. 9.51 billion, reversing a Rs. 405.6 billion deficit a year earlier, although the surplus narrowed sharply from Rs. 197.34 billion at end-May as expenditure accelerated in June.

According to the latest fiscal operations data released by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), total revenue and grants increased by 27.1% year-on-year (YoY) to Rs. 2.96 trillion during the January-June period from Rs. 2.33 trillion a year earlier.

The 1H outturn marked a significant moderation from the fiscal position at end-May, when the Government had accumulated an overall Budget surplus of Rs. 197.34 billion. Based on the cumulative figures, the reduction to Rs. 9.51 billion at end-June implies an overall Budget deficit of about Rs. 187.83 billion during June.

Revenue increased by 27.2% YoY to Rs. 2.95 trillion in 1H from Rs. 2.32 trillion in the corresponding period of 2025.

Tax revenue, which accounted for the bulk of Government income, rose 25.9% to Rs. 2.71 trillion from Rs. 2.15 trillion a year earlier. Non-tax revenue increased by 43.6% to Rs. 243.64 billion from Rs. 169.63 billion, while grants declined 46.6% to Rs. 1.81 billion from Rs. 3.39 billion.

Compared with the first five months, revenue and grants increased by about Rs. 416 billion in June, rising from Rs. 2.54 trillion at end-May to Rs. 2.96 trillion at end-June.

Meanwhile, expenditure and lending minus repayments increased by 7.9% YoY to Rs. 2.95 trillion during 1H from Rs. 2.73 trillion a year earlier.

The cumulative expenditure figure rose from Rs. 2.34 trillion at end-May, indicating an increase of about Rs. 606 billion during June. The faster increase in expenditure relative to revenue during the month accounted for the sharp narrowing of the overall Budget surplus.

Recurrent expenditure increased by 6.5% YoY to Rs. 2.67 trillion from Rs. 2.51 trillion. Capital expenditure and lending minus repayments rose by 23.6% to Rs. 276.6 billion from Rs. 223.88 billion in the corresponding period last year.

The primary balance, a key fiscal indicator monitored under Sri Lanka’s International Monetary Fund (IMF)-supported reform program, strengthened further to a surplus of Rs. 1.24 trillion during 1H from Rs. 858.99 billion a year earlier, an increase of 44.8%.

The primary surplus also increased from Rs. 1.13 trillion at end-May, even as the overall Budget surplus narrowed sharply during June.

For 1H as a whole, revenue and grants increased by Rs. 630.9 billion YoY, compared with a Rs. 215.78 billion increase in expenditure and lending minus repayments. This resulted in a Rs. 415.11 billion improvement in the overall Budget balance from 1H 2025.

According to the IMF’s latest assessment, following temporary fiscal easing in 2026, the Government remains committed to restoring the primary surplus target to 2.3% of GDP in 2027 to safeguard macroeconomic stability.

The IMF has called for continued efforts to strengthen tax compliance, broaden the tax base, and improve public financial management, while accelerating public spending execution, including disaster-related support.

It has also urged accelerated State-owned enterprise reforms, continued cost-reflective energy pricing, and stronger social safety nets to contain fiscal risks.

The IMF has further stressed the need to strengthen the Public Debt Management Office as debt restructuring nears completion to support prudent debt management, deepen the domestic debt market, and facilitate Sri Lanka’s eventual return to international capital markets.

World number one Sabalenka upset by Alexandrova at Canadian Open

World number one Sabalenka suffered a setback in her US Open build-up after she was beaten 7-6(3), 4-6, 6-4 by Russia’s Ekaterina Alexandrova in the fourth round of the Canadian Open in Toronto on Saturday.

The 16th-seeded Alexandrova fought a hard battle, lasting nearly two and a half hours, to secure her quarterfinal berth.

Sabalenka, a four-time Grand Slam champion and reigning US Open winner, recovered from a set down to force a decider but was unable to halt Alexandrova’s aggressive shot-making in the final set.

The Belarusian early in the opening set before Alexandrova rallied to force a tiebreak, which the Russian won to move ahead.

Sabalenka responded by seizing control of the second set with a break for a 4-3 lead before serving out to level the match.

Alexandrova held her nerve in the decider as Sabalenka’s error count rose. Serving to stay in the match at 4-5, the top seed saved two match points, but a double fault on the third handed victory to the Russian.

‘I just tried to play every single point as if it was the last one because with her, you don’t [get] a lot of chances during the match,’ Alexandrova said in her on-court interview.

‘Honestly, I was trying not to think about the score or anything. Just hit the ball, and that’s it.

‘I’m super y that I could win because after the second set, I thought (the chance) was already past me.’

Alexandrova will face Ukraine’s Elina , defeated American eighth seed Amanda Anisimova 6-2, 6-4 for a place in the semifinals.