We cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of the FBR – Chief Justice Yahya Afridi
FBR files appeals, and lawyers keep delaying cases for six years. – Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb
A three-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, hears cases.
Islamabad ( Web News )
Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Yahya Afridi, has stated that cases remained pending from 2017 to 2022, and when the petition was dismissed, they approached the Supreme Court for reinstatement. “We cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of the FBR. It would be better if we do not give a decision in this case. Was any action taken against the officer? The petitioner’s conduct is not appropriate,” he said.
Meanwhile, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb remarked that the FBR files appeals, and lawyers keep obtaining adjournments for six years. If the court dismisses the case, they know they can file a restoration petition in the Supreme Court, and the case will be reinstated. “Make this a test case and explain to your officers that what they are doing is highly inappropriate. This involves state funds,” he added.
A three-member bench, comprising Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, heard the petition filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone 1), Large Taxpayers Unit Islamabad, against M/S MIA Corporation Private Limited and others.
Chief Justice Afridi questioned why the court should entertain this matter when there was no legal question in the case. He reiterated that the case remained pending from 2017 to 2022, and after its dismissal, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court for reinstatement. “We cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of the FBR,” he asserted.
Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb reiterated that FBR files appeals, and lawyers keep delaying cases for six years. If the court dismisses the case, they know they can approach the Supreme Court for restoration, and the case will be revived.
Chief Justice Afridi remarked, “It would be better if we do not give a verdict in this case. Was any action taken against the officer?” He further stated that the Appellate Tribunal had thoroughly examined the fraud allegations and found nothing wrong.
Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb emphasized making this a test case to educate officers that such practices are unacceptable, as they involve state funds. Chief Justice Afridi remarked that the petitioner’s conduct was not appropriate.
The Chief Justice, while addressing lawyer Malik Qamar Afzal, noted that Justice Musarrat Hilali, who was on the bench, was advocating for issuing a notice. Consequently, the court issued a notice and adjourned the hearing indefinitely.
In another case, the bench heard a petition filed by Muhammad Sharif against the Commissioner Inland Revenue and others. Petitioner’s lawyer, Khawaja Azhar Rasheed, argued that he was subjected to double taxation.
Chief Justice Afridi asked, “How?”
The lawyer responded, “Initially, a tax of 2 million rupees was imposed on an income of 40 million rupees. Later, during an audit, they claimed the income was 60 million rupees and imposed an additional tax of 4 million rupees.”
The court declared the petition inadmissible and dismissed it.
Additionally, the bench heard a petition filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone Three, Lahore, against the Lahore High Court’s decision in a tax matter concerning Pracen Descon International Private Limited, Lahore.
Chief Justice Afridi questioned how the court could disengage from determining the facts and asked the petitioner’s lawyer, Muhammad Umar Riaz, to specify the issue.
He further asked, “If advance tax has already been collected from a person, do you still impose further tax later?”
The petitioner’s lawyer, Muhammad Umar Riaz, replied, “Yes, we do.”
Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb inquired whether, in cases where excessive advance tax is collected, the excess amount is refunded later. The lawyer responded affirmatively.
Muhammad Umar Riaz argued that this case was a matter of first impression. Chief Justice Afridi directed the parties to submit written arguments and exchange documents. The bench adjourned the hearing until the second week of April.