Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has expressed serious concerns over the filing of frivolous complaints by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). He ordered the tax department to constitute committees to examine the cases before approaching the courts.
“In order to resolve this issue, it is imperative that the FBR Chairman considers constituting committees which function with the highest degree of independence and include a retired judge of the higher judiciary, an experienced tax practitioner and senior or retired officers of the FBR with distinguished track record and impeccable credentials.
“These committees should be mandated to consider each case in a timely manner before a decision is taken to file a reference in a high court or a petition in this court.
“The FBR may also consider undertaking a review of all pending cases to determine whether the questions of law sought to be raised are already settled by judgments of superior courts,” said a six-page judgment written by Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb.
Justice Aurangzeb was part of a three-member bench, headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, which dismissed an FBR petition in a taxpayer-related case.
The Court lamented that when government departments routinely file appeals or petitions – often to the high courts and the Supreme Court – on questions of law that have already been authoritatively decided, this practice results in serious institutional harm.
“The most immediate consequence is the backlog of court dockets. Courts are forced to spend scarce judicial time revisiting issues that are no longer res integra, at the cost of undecided legal and constitutional questions, criminal appeals involving personal liberty, and civil litigation that has been ongoing for years.
“This undermines the constitutional mandate for speedy justice. Repeated appeals or petitions on established laws weaken respect for Article 189 of the Constitution, the doctrine of stare decisis and judicial discipline in the executive branch.
The judgment highlights that when the state itself disregards binding precedents, it sends the wrong signals to subordinate courts and tribunals and litigants.
Such appeals and motions, the statement said, result in unavoidable legal costs and consumption of public funds for lawyers, court costs and administrative procedures.
The court further observed that the state is supposed to act as a responsible and fair litigant, not as a compulsive appellant or petitioner. The practice and tendency within ministries to file appeals or petitions mechanically — especially when the outcome is predictable in light of established law — has already been disapproved by the court in previous judgments.
The Court also noted that it already possessed both constitutional authority and jurisprudential tools to address the problem of repeated appeals or motions from government departments on settled questions of law.
“Not only can courts deny such appeals or motions in limine, but one of the most effective tools is the imposition of costs. In serious cases, courts may also require identification of the officer who authorized the filing of the appeal or petition.
“It is imperative that there is internal accountability within ministries and careful legal review before filing appeals or petitions.
“Had such consideration taken place prior to the filing of this application, it would have been realized that the main question of law sought to be raised is already authoritatively settled by a number of judgments of this court.”
The judgment further notes that despite the law laid down by the SC — binding on the FBR under Article 189 of the Constitution — the petitioners have attempted to “reinvent the wheel” by arguing that the time limit of 120 days prescribed in the first proviso of Section 11(5), as substituted by Section 11G(2) of the 1990 Act, for passing an order is directive rather than mandatory.
