ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested to the federation to initiate tax proceedings against Justice Qazi Faez Isa's wife for non-disclosure of London properties under the Income Tax Ordinance as the Presidential reference has defects.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial told Farogh Naseem that there are defects in Presidential reference, and if the allegation of malice was not rebutted fully then a finding could come from the bench members.
He therefore, asked the counsel to seek instructions from the authorities to refer the matter to the FBR for proceeding under the tax law.
Farogh Naseem contended he would inform the court about the matter tomorrow (Wednesday) after consulting the prime minister.
Justice Bandial said they also have to talk to the petitioner's counsel. If both the parties agree then they will refer the matter to the FBR; otherwise, decide the case on merit.
Justice Maqbool Baqir said: "Speaking for myself I have no objection, if the due process is followed". A 10-member larger bench is hearing identical petitions challenging presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez for allegedly not disclosing his foreign properties in his wealth statement. Farogh Naseem, representing federation and the chairman Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) Shahzad Akbar, again made submission on high standard of judges. In this regard, he cited the Company Act, the Bangalore Declaration and the judgments of English courts.
On the basis of principle of proximity, Justice Faez should disclose the source of income of properties, contended Farogh. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned under the tax law whether a husband can seek the tax details of his independent wife or ask the tax authorities to give detail of his wife's tax returns, to use these details in his defence.
Farogh contended that is not the case of the petitioner.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned whether the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has asked the petitioner about his wife's sources.
Justice Maqbool Baqir said; "Though we are aware that in the past how the tax machinery was used for exploitation, we are not saying that the Income Officer should not question the lady wife of judge. "We want the matter be proceeded under the law".
Farogh contended that from public servants, the required information is not sought from the tax authorities, but asked the officer to provide detail of judge's wife's assets.
He again emphasized that the proceedings against the judge are not under the tax law, but are disciplinary proceedings.
The counsel said that neither him nor Shahzad Akbar procured tax record of the petitioner and his wife from the FBR, but it was the SJC that summoned their tax record.
However, Justice Mansoor said the counsel and Shahzad Akbar had first obtained the details of their tax returns from the FBR. Justice Afridi inquired under what law the ARU obtained the details of petitioner and his wife. He said according to the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the ARU, it can refer any matter related to tax to the FBR, but cannot seek details of taxpayers' tax/wealth returns.
He said the federation has to explain how the ARU was established.
At the end of the hearing, Justice Bandial asked the counsel to conclude his arguments by tomorrow as other counsel for the federation have to make submissions as well, while Munir A Malik has to rebut.
He asked Farogh that still he had not made submissions about the ARU to explain whether or not the right procedure was followed, and how the evidence were collected.
Farogh contended that the reference was in order and there were no defects in it.
He said tax matter was one of the minor points, while the main issue was the 'misconduct' of the petitioner.
He said there was sufficient material; therefore, a reference was filed in the SJC for further probe.
He said when the petitioner could provide every document and petition in his defence then why can't he disclose his sources.
The record is available, and the president's decision to send reference to the SJC stands vindicated.
Justice Baqir asked whether the president formed an independent opinion as per Article 209(5) of the Constitution. He said the president has to remain neutral; therefore, he has to form an independent opinion before sending reference to the SJC. He said the Supreme Court can still strike down the reference. As Farogh Naseem was reading various sections of the Bangalore Declaration about the conduct of judges, Maqbool drew his attention towards a point dealing with a smear campaign against judges.
On this, the counsel got annoyed, and said smear campaign has been launched against him, the prime minister, and Shahzad Akbar as well. The petitioner even described me as a 'tout', he said. Farogh said he has been going through a painful situation. Justice Baqir said the federation should also realise that the petitioner, too, was going through a painful situation.
He said the country was passing through difficult times and therefore could not afford any turmoil.
The case was adjourned until Wednesday.
Comments
Comments are closed.