Lahore High Court (LHC) had imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue as the tax department failed to order to detach the bank accounts of the taxpayer within the stipulated time as ordered by the appellate tribunal. Sources told Business Recorder Monday the LHC had imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 upon the FBR official to be paid by the DCIR from his own pocket.
When contacted a Lahore based tax lawyer Waheed Shahzad Butt shared details of recovery proceedings by the FBR field formations. Tax lawyer added that a fine of Rs 50,000 was imposed on the concerned DCIR by the LHC with the remarks "since the Respondent did not order to detach the accounts of the Petitioner within the stipulated time and delayed the matter, a fine of Rs 50,000/- is imposed upon the Respondent, which shall be paid by the Respondent from his own pocket". In the given circumstances, the Chairman FBR is directed to look into the issue and take notice of the hasty action taken by an office of the FBR to recover tax even when the appeal is pending and especially when an interim order has been issued by the Appellate Tribunal: LHC order added.
Tax lawyer further added that present move by the field formations of FBR is an attempt to generate additional revenue to meet budgetary targets without realising the legality of recovery proceedings and fate of void demand of taxes. Without any iota of doubt every public functionary is bound to obey command of Constitution and nobody should be penalised by inaction of public functionaries because public functionaries are duty-bound to act in accordance with the law. Peoples of Pakistan must be provided justice by all organs of State and everybody has to work honestly, fairly and justly.
LHC order stated "The Appellate Tribunal in the presence of the representative of the Respondent passed its order whereby it restrained the Respondent from the recovery of the impugned demand for 30 days from the date of order. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that this order came into the knowledge of the respondent after which no recovery was affected against the petitioner. I am of the opinion that this stance taken by the respondent is misconceived and totally against the spirit of the order of the appellate tribunal. The order categorically restrained the respondents from recovering the impugned tax, meaning that it prohibited the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner for recovery of the impugned tax. Recovery of any amount through attachment of the bank accounts falls within the prohibition. Hence the respondents were required to immediately detach the accounts of the petitioner. The order of the Appellate Tribunal was passed in the presence of the departmental representative therefore, for the purposes of the order, it should be communicated to the department on the very same day. The respondent totally ignored the order of the appellate tribunal and created a technical reason for non-compliance. The petitioner then approached the appellate tribunal again seeking another order wherein the respondents were directed to detach the bank accounts of the petitioner. This order was passed by the appellate tribunal in the presence of departmental representative. The Respondent therefore, became aware of the order of the appellate tribunal because the presence of the departmental representative before the appellate tribunal is to ensure compliance of the orders of the appellate tribunal. When a clear cut direction was issued by the appellate tribunal requiring the department to detach the bank accounts of the petitioner, the respondent was obliged to comply with the order of the appellate tribunal immediately. The respondent again did not comply with the order of the appellate tribunal and admittedly waited to issue a letter to the banks of the petitioner to detach/de-freeze the bank accounts of the petitioner. To the mind of the court, this delay was not inadvertent or bona fide, the LHC ordered.
Tax lawyer further explained that there is no concept of "unfettered discretion" in the fiscal laws of this Land, and arbitrary exercise of discretionary powers has to be struck down. discretion becomes an act of discrimination when it is improper or capricious exercise or abuse of discretionary authority. It is duty of the authorities like FBR officials to dispense justice and its presiding officers are supposed to uphold the dignity of law and respect command and orders of the superior courts. On the other hand due to illegal act of some field formations the process of law is being abused badly and it may be examined by the high courts having supervisory jurisdiction over the tribunals under Article 203 of the Constitution, he added.
Comments
Comments are closed.