Lahore:
The High Court of Lahore (LHC) was informed on Monday that a considerable amount of RS2 Billion was useful in the dispute in the Inland Revenue court (ATIR) in recent years.
The Ministry of Law declared in its response to a request against the law on tax laws (amendment) that cases were blocked for various reasons, in particular the arbitrary constitution of the benches, the inadequate number of benches, the delay in the fixing of business and the provision of appels.
J. LHC Jawad Hassan took over the petition in which certain modifications to the appeal procedure provided under the income tax order (ITO) had been disputed. The judge summoned the manager of the Federal Revenue Council (FBR) concerned on March 25 to explain the modifications.
During the procedure, judge Hassan noted that the ITO had prescribed the procedure of pecuniary jurisdiction on appeal. However, he added: “Thanks to the contested amendment, a call forum was removed.”
According to the judge, a significant number of cases filed before this Court were instituted by the FBR mainly for the lack of reference to the relevant provisions of the law, the absence of an appropriate hearing, the issuance of ordinances in a manner to slip and the non-application of the judicious spirit.
Due to these shortcomings, this court has often been forced to refer cases to the commissioners (appels) for a new decision in accordance with the law, said judge Hassan. “This situation consumes the precious time of this court, resulting in an increase in the backwards of tax references, thus negatively affecting the hearing and the elimination of other cases,” he added.
The judge mentioned that the FBR had not faced any financial obstacle in the deposit of tax references, because it was exempt from paying legal costs, while an ordinary litiger was required to pay 50,000 rupees per reference.
“The result is a clear discrimination against the citizens of Pakistan, depriving them of equality of access to justice, which will relate to the fundamental rights of the public guaranteed under articles 4, 10-A and 37 (d) of the Constitution,” said judge Hassan.
Judge Hassan also pointed out that the last Amendments to ITO placed an extraordinary burden at this court, because currently, there was only one division bench for tax references in Bahawalpur, one in Multan, two in Rawalpindi and three in the main seat of Lahore.
“This court has repeatedly stressed that the orders adopted by the commissioners (calls) are often summary, lacking in reasoning and suffer from serious shortcomings, which ultimately leads to a dispute before this court,” said judge Hassan.
The defense, however, defended the amendment, claiming that the disputed arrangements had been inserted to discourage unnecessary or frivolous calls, which would help
