Islamabad:
The president of the Pakistan office said on Wednesday that the head of state orders could not be challenged before any court. The declaration took place after the Federal Board of Return (FBR) obtained a suspension order from a provincial court against the president’s decision in a tax case concerning MH merchants.
The unique case shows the state bodies in disagreement. FBR President Rashid Langrial has repeatedly declared to the Senatorial Committee on Finance that the FBR could not even think of contesting the president’s orders.
Directed by Senator Saleem Mandviwalla, the Committee has taken over the underside of a presidential order. The president’s office had made the prescription in July this year, but the FBR did not apply it.
“The President’s orders are absolutely of an absolute nature and, as head of state, no agency or department can challenge them anywhere,” said Zia Basit, legal director at the President’s secretariat.
In July of this year, the president’s secretariat accepted the representation of MH merchants in a case of erroneous classification of imported goods. The FBR had classified imported goods as a polyester fabric, while the importer had declared them in artificial leather to use in the manufacture of football.
The importer went to the office of the federal tax mediator, who rejected the request for jurisdiction. MH merchants, as well as another importer, challenged the order of the FTO before the president. The president set aside the orders of the FBR and the FTO.
Last month, the FBR went to the High Court of the Sindh against the President’s order and obtained a suspension.
Langrial said that the FBR had not disputed order in the capacity of the president as head of state. He said that the FBR challenged him as an appeal authority which has almost legal powers in tax matters.
“I do not know where this concept of almost judicial power comes from, because the president has an absolute authority,” said the legal director general.
In September of last year, the president’s secretariat wrote to the Prime Minister’s secretary. He asked for clarity on the application of the President’s orders in representations against the mediator’s conclusions.
Subsequently, the Prime Minister’s office asked the Division of Law and Justice to issue instructions to all ministries and divisions. They were told to strictly observe article 18 of the federal law on the institutional reforms of 2013 (Foira) when they deal with cases and calls already decided by the federal mediator or the president as an appeal authority.
He also asked them to withdraw calls and representations, if necessary, deposited against the ordinances of the federal ombudsman or the president. These calls were called violations of article 18 of the law.
In December, the law management issued binding orders to all ministries. Wednesday, BASIT produced these instructions before the Senate Committee on Finance.
The Directorate of Law said that the provisions contained in article 18 of the Federal 2013 law on the institutional reforms of the Ombudsman should be strictly observed while dealing with cases and calls which have already been decided by the federal ombudsman or the president as a authority of appeal. He also declared that calls and representations, if they were deposited, against the ordinances of the federal ombudsman or of the president should be withdrawn as being violated from article 18 of the Ibid law.
According to the written response of the FBR to the permanent committee, the goods imported from M / S MH were declared in artificial leather under a concessional tax regime for the manufacture of football. However, customs laboratory tests called the goods “printed polyester fabric, not in PU leather”.
The FBR also said that the importer was not recorded as a manufacturer. Registration is a prerequisite to benefit from the importation of concession. The FBR has decided to rule on the importer, but instead of joining the arbitration procedure, the importer filed a complaint with the federal tax mediator.
The FTO rejected the complaint, citing the lack of competence. The importer then placed a representation in front of the president of Pakistan.
The President’s office canceled the FTO order and granted compensation to the importer. However, the customs collection challenged the president’s order before the Sindh High Court, which granted a suspension in favor of the FBR.
The FBR told the permanent committee that the “president could not assume competence when the FTO expressly refused it”. He indicated that an erroneous classification order had already been made against the importer, which the importer had challenged in the customs court.
“The challenge of the president’s order in this case does not violate the instructions of the firm division,” said the FBR. “These instructions only make the challenges where the president confirms the decision of the FTO. Here, the President’s order contradicts the FTO decision.”
But the legal CEO of the president’s secretariat revealed that the instructions of the cabinet in 2016, which allow the FBR to go to court when the ordinances of the FTO and the president contradict, had already been canceled. He said that new instructions from the law division obtained such acts by the FBR.
The FBR said that, if its position is not accepted, the 1969 customs law and allied laws would be rendered useless. Instead of monitoring the arbitration procedure leading to the Supreme Court of Pakistan at the Appeal stadium, traders would prefer to request an appeal directly to the president’s office. This would create serious application problems for FBR field training across the country.
The FBR said that MH Traders operated only sewing and knitting machines to sew clothes, without any proof of football manufacturing.
The president of the FBR said that the ministry also asked for clarification at the Pakistan Attorney General’s Office. He said that, if the Attorney General did not support the position of the FBR, the ministry would withdraw the case from the high court of the Sindh.
The committee postponed the case until the next hearing.
