ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has asked under what provision of Income Tax Ordinance (ITO) 2001 or any other law timeline/deadline has been given to the income tax authorities regarding the proceedings against the wife and children of Justice Qazi Faez.
The SCBA President, Syed Qalb-e-Hassan, on Wednesday filed a review petition under Article 188 of the Constitution against the apex court verdict on Justice Qazi Faez's petition against the Presidential Reference.
Justice Faez had challenged the Presidential Reference under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
Besides the apex court judge, the Pakistan Bar Council, the SCBA, bar councils and associations of Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan, Abid Hassan Minto, and I A Rehman have also challenged the Presidential Reference.
A 10-judge bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, on June 19, 2020 passed the short order.
The court quashed the reference and abated the proceeding before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
The SCBA stated that they were fully satisfied with para 1 of the short order, but had serious reservations about the contents of para 3 to 11 of the order, therefore, sought a review by way of deletion of those paras.
It questioned under what provision of law and the Constitution, the matter relating the assets and properties of the spouse and children of the apex court judge had been referred to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) by the Supreme Court under a short order dated 19 June 2020, when they were neither a party to proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council nor were they party before the Court in proceeding under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
It said: "Whether the apex court without assigning any reasons could override the provisions of Section 112 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and issue direction in respect of the matter, which pertained to years beyond the period of limitation given therein and deny due process and protection of law to the spouse and the children of Justice Qazi Faez?
"What jurisdiction does the SJC have in regard to the assets and properties of spouse and children of a judge"?
The SCBA submitted that the SJC became functus officio for the purpose of this case after the quashing of reference against Justice Qazi Faez.
"It is beyond the jurisdiction of the SJC to take notice of any future report against Justice Faez, when admittedly assets and properties of the said judge are no more in question and there was no misconduct alleged by anybody against the said judge," it said.
It contended that the impugned order was unconstitutional and was liable to be reviewed in the interest of justice.
The SCBA said the apex court had referred the matter in relation to the properties of the spouse and children of Justice Faez to the FBR without assigning any reasons.
It submitted that under Section 122 of the ITO, 2001 certain substantive and procedural safeguards had been provided for the protection of the taxpayers including a period of limitation for amending an assessment.
The Bar Association said there were no possible grounds for the directions to the FBR. Therefore, it added, "the 19th June order being without jurisdiction was liable to be reviewed in the interest of justice".
It said from the very provisions of Article 209 of the Constitution, it was clear that the SJC was not a continuing body and was constituted for every individual case that was brought before it.
"It is equally incomprehensible how could an unconstituted SJC or its chairman entertain a report. This constitutional aspect has escaped the notice of the 10-judge bench order.
The SJC has no jurisdiction to probe or inquire into the assets and properties of the spouse and children of a judge because its jurisdiction is limited to the extent of physical or mental incapacity of a judge or a case of misconduct against a judge.
"The spouse and children of a judge do not fall within the scope and ambit of exercise of jurisdiction," it said.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2020