It is reliably learnt that a complaint was filed, by a tax lawyer Waheed Shahzad Butt, for recovery of untaxed / black money introduced under scheme notified vide SRO No 1065(I)/2013 by the former Prime Minister. The complaint has been preferred before the FTO against Chairman FBR and all Chief Commissioners Inland Revenue. The said complaint has been dismissed by the FTO.
The FTO order states, "The complaint has been filed against failure to initiate appropriate proceedings against the official(s) responsible for issuing SRO 1065(1)/2013 dated 20.12.2013, which was declared as illegal being issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect by the LHC vide judgment dated 01.03.2018.
The Complainant, a practicing lawyer, aggrieved at SRO 1065(I)/2013, challenged the same through WP 14621/2014 before the LHC. According to the Complainant, the Amnesty Scheme 2013 announced by inserting Clause 86 of Part IV of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 through SRO 1065(1)/2013 dated 20.12.2013, was simply to facilitate the tax dodgers/evaders. It was also in violation of the Constitution 1973.
He contended that the above SRO was held to be unconstitutional, by the LHC, he approached the Deptt for taking appropriate action against the persons responsible and ensure to keep strict check to avoid such happenings in future. However, despite his repeated efforts no response has been shown, hence the instant complaint by treating the same as maladministration.
The complaint was sent for comments to the Secretary Revenue Division. In response thereto, the FBR raised preliminary objection under Section 9(2)(a)&(b) of the FTO Ordinance, on the ground that the Deptt had already filed Intra Court Appeal against the decision passed in Writ Petition. On merits, it was contended that Complainant had just given a generic statement about introduction of any tax amnesty scheme and his own preference for an "Asset Seizure Scheme" instead of any tax amnesty.
It was further contended that SROs were issued in terms of Section 53 as powers are delegated by the legislature to the Executive. However, all SROs issued during the year were placed before the National Assembly. Furthermore, Section 241 inserted in the Finance Act 2017, validated all the previously issued SROs through the validation clause of Section 241.
During hearing, the complainant submitted explanation stating that the Deptt after filing of the instant complaint has filed ICA against the judgment of single bench order. He contended that no restraining order or interim relief has been allowed to the Deptt.
Evidently against the single bench judgment dated 01.03.2018 in WP 14621/2014, the Deptt has preferred ICA which is now sub-judice before the LHC. As the matter is now sub-judice before a competent court, jurisdiction of this Forum is barred under Section 9(2)(a) of the FTO Ordinance.
No matter the ICA was filed before or after filing of the Complaint. The Hon'ble High Court being a Constitutional Court, shall take precedence over a quasi judicial forum and ultimately verdict of the High Court shall hold the field. In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is dismissed being barred by Section 9(2)(a) of the FTO Ordinance, Case file be consigned to record, FTO order added.