It is learnt that contempt petition has been moved by RTO Faisalabad-based taxpayer through Advocate Waheed Shahzad Butt, wherein the petitioner questioned the working of office of the President as Appellate Authority under FTO Ordinance, 2000, and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) functionaries regarding powers of I.R.S officials resulting in futile litigation due to passage of illegal orders or retention of taxpayer's money in shape of refunds.
The LHC has issued notices in a contempt of court petition filed by taxpayer Muhammad Ashraf whose refunds have been denied by the Commissioner on one and the other pretext even after obtaining orders from the FTO.
The petitioner states, "Respondents (Office of President and Commissioner-I.R) are allegedly involved in violating the verdicts of binding nature issued by the LHC and confirmed by the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 1074. He said the respondents acted illegally, arbitrarily with malafide intention and refused the lawful right of the petitioner under the garb of Section 32 of the FTO Ordinance, 2000 by willfully flouting and disregarding the unambiguous orders passed by the LHC hence he sought cognizance may be taken for contempt of the LHC and respondents may be stopped from doing any act prejudicial to the taxpayer citizens of Pakistan.
The tax lawyer Waheed added that earlier LHC has ruled that office of President of Pakistan has caused miscarriage of justice to entertain and pass a decision on the representation filed by the FBR against the decision of the FTO. Earlier, petition was filed challenging the FBR's action to file representation before the President of Pakistan against the order passed by FTO.
The LHC order stated, "This petition under Article 199 lays a challenge to the order passed by the President of Pakistan in the exercise of its jurisdiction conferred by FTO Act. The representation was filed against findings/recommendations passed by the FTO in a complaint filed by the agency (FBR).
At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an important issue regarding the limitation was taken up in the reply filed to the representation on behalf of the petitioner. That objection has gone abegging and was not adverted to in the impugned order passed by the President. He has relied upon the case law to bring home the assertion that President in the exercise of its powers under the F.T.O. Ordinance cannot condone the delay in filing of the representation. Upon a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that this question was neither alluded to nor decided while passing the impugned order and this has indeed impinged upon right of the petitioner to be dealt with in accordance with law.
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 too was 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, LHC ordered.