Delay in refund payment despite ATIR order: IHC directs FBR to pay adjournment cost to counsels

ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court (IHC) has directed the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to pay an adjournment cost of Rs5,000 each to the counsels of the petitioner (foreign company) for delay in payment of refund despite an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR).

The IHC has imposed the adjournment cost on the counsels of the FBR due to their non-appearance on the day of the hearing.

The IHC has warned the FBR that the court would double the cost on the FBR in case of non-appearance on the next date of hearing.

The case has been re-listed for November 15, 2023.

In this regard, the IHC has issued instructions to the FBR chairman in the matter of writ petition 4387 of 2023 filed by a foreign technology company.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner company seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the refusal/failure by the FBR, in spite of the repeated requests and reminders sent by the petitioner company to the FBR, to refund to the petitioner company the sum of Rs647,487,650.

The refund amount was due in compliance with the order of the ATIR, Islamabad Bench, Islamabad (Appellate Tribunal) passed in the income tax appeal (for tax year 2016).

The learned counsel for the FBR was not present on the date of the hearing and the case could not proceed further for that reason.

The FBR is liable to pay an adjournment cost of Rs5,000 each to the counsels for the petitioner as well as for respondent no3 OGDCL.

In case of non appearance on the next date of hearing, the costs would be doubled, or the court may proceed to hear and decide the case on the basis of the available record, the IHC’s order said.

The counsel for OGDCL has requested for the OGDCL’s presence to be dispensed with as it is only a proforma respondent. The counsel for the petitioner did not object initially, but while the order was being dictated, halfway through he changed his mind and said that he wanted to have OGDCL present in court because the refund dispute has led OGDCL to withhold further payments due to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the OGDCL’s presence is not dispensed with.

The parties were directed to file their statements of the costs of litigation under section 35 CPC before the next date of hearing, IHC added.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023