Earlier, a petition was filed by a Faisalabad-based taxpayer Muhammad Ashraf through Waheed Shahzad Butt Advocate, to challenge the FBR's action to file representation before the President of Pakistan against the order passed by FTO. By accepting the stance of the petitioner, order passed by the President of Pakistan was set aside by the single bench of the LHC; however, the FBR preferred Intra-Court Appeal before the division bench, which is also dismissed. The LHC order earlier stated that it is evident that this question was neither alluded to nor decided while passing the order and this has indeed impinged upon right of the taxpayer to be dealt with in accordance with law. This has caused miscarriage of justice and order of President is liable to be set aside.
The FBR preferred appeal stating that, "Appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated September 25, 2017 assails the same before the Division Bench, inter alia on the following grounds: Firstly, the single bench has erred in setting aside the order passed by the President on merits. Secondly, it is a settled law that technicalities unless offering an insurmountable hurdle should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice.
Thirdly, the single bench has erred in giving life to the order of the FTO which was void order as it suffered from jurisdictional defect inasmuch as learned FTO has no jurisdiction in cases which involve determination of tax liability and in the present of remedy of appeal as provided u/s 9(2)(b) of FTO Ordinance, 2000. Fourthly, the question involved in this appeal is of great pubic importance and as such needs adjudication by this court.
The counsel for taxpayer Waheed Butt said that the taxpayers of Pakistan question the working of Office of President of Pakistan as Appellate Authority and FBR's functionaries to play with the precious resources of national exchequer (taxpayer's money) and wastage of taxpayer's money in futile litigation either by passing patently illegal orders or retaining taxpayer's money in shape of refunds and then defending it to save the skin of higher authorities at the cost of public money. The President while performing functions as appellate authority under FTO Ordinance, 2000, played a biased role and accepted the patently illegal representations, so much so, earlier orders of binding nature issued by the predecessor in office have been ignored for unknown reasons.
The LHC ordered that the fact that a representation was filed beyond time has also been conceded to by the FBR which has filed an application for delay of one day to be condoned. This application was also not decided by the officer deciding the representation on behalf of the President. This has caused miscarriage of justice and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground. "In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The verdict of single bench has been maintained by the division bench of the LHC and appeal preferred by the FBR has been dismissed."