Contempt of court: IR Faisalabad official sentenced to 3 months; fined Rs 50,000

Transcription

1 Contempt of court: IR Faisalabad official sentenced to 3 months; fined Rs 50,000 December 25, 2012 RECORDER REPORT Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) Dr Muhammad Shoaib Suddle on Monday sentenced Muhammad Saleem, Additional Commiss-ioner Inland Revenue Faisalabad for three months with a fine of Rs 50,000 for contempt of court and directly sent him to Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi from the court's premises. It is learnt that the FTO has issued a detailed judgement dated December 24, 2012 in the contempt proceedings under section 16 of the Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 against Additional Commissioner, Inland Revenue pleading him guilty. For the first time in the history of the office, the FTO has demonstrated powers under Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, applying section 16 of the FTO Ordinance read with Article 204 of the Constitution for punishing a senior tax official who used derogatory language and caused obstruction in the process of delivering justice by Federal Tax Ombudsman, by granting relief to the taxpayers. This is for the first time that the FTO has applied his full powers and punished a senior tax official for committing contempt of court. According to the information released by the FTO Office here on Monday, Muhammad Saleem was charged for committing contempt of court. He was therefore, issued a show cause notice of contempt. Instead of filing reply, he preferred to place a representation before the President of Pakistan which was dismissed. He also filed almost 10 frivolous writ petitions before the High Court, which too met the same fate. On leaving no stone unturned to get favour, he tendered apology to the Federal Tax Ombudsman, who considering the same as a mere tool to escape from the legal clutches, convicted and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs 50,000 under Section 5 of

2 the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, while exercising the powers conferred upon him under Section 16 of the FTO Ordinance read with Article 204 of the Constitution. In case of default in payment of fine, he will further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. After issuance of judgement by the FTO, Dr Suddle here on Monday, the convict (Muhammad Saleem) was taken into custody by the police for remitting him to Adiala Jail Rawalpindi, to serve the sentence, recorded against him. FTO announced the judgement in the presence of tax official and his counsel on December 24, The judgement of the FTO Office said that the charge of contempt of the FTO as defined in section 16(a) and section 16 (b) of the Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000, read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Ordinance 2003, stands proved. Saleem is hereby convicted of the charge. The language used by him alone demands full dose of sentence. However, taking into account his - belated - apology as a mitigating circumstance, he is sentenced to three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50,000, or in default to suffer further simple imprisonment of 15 days. FTO's judgement said that Muhammad Saleem used different tactics to frustrate implementation of the FTO's Recommendations. Under the FTO Ordinance, non-implementation of recommendations within a period of 30 days invites contempt proceedings. Abusing the process of law, the Respondent obstructed and impeded the implementation of Recommendations by resorting to fishing inquiries against the taxpayer as well as through a criminal complaint filed against him to contrive a bar of jurisdiction on the part of the FTO. He used scandalous, derogatory and contemptuous language against the FTO and Advisor to FTO. His acts of contempt are liable to be punished. It said that Federal Tax Ombudsman, in matters of contempt, exercises, mutatis mutandis, the powers of the Supreme Court as enunciated in Section 16 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 (FTO Ordinance). Under section 16 of the FTO

3 Ordinance confers upon the Federal Tax Ombudsman the power to punish for contempt any person who-abuses, interferes with, impedes, imperils, or obstructs the process of the Federal Tax Ombudsman in any way or disobeys any order of the Federal Tax Ombudsman; scandalises the Federal Tax Ombudsman or otherwise does anything which tends to bring the Federal Tax Ombudsman, staff members, nominees of the office, or any person authorised by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in relation to his office into hatred, ridicule or contempt; does anything which tends to prejudice the determination of a matter pending before the Federal Tax Ombudsman; or does any other thing which, by any other law, constitutes contempt of court. The judgement said that taxpayer Asif Iqbal of Faisalabad filed a complaint No 325/LHR/IT (269)/591/2010 dated against non-issuance of income tax refund pertaining to Tax Year After hearing both parties the FTO, vide findings/recommendations dated , directed the FBR to ensure that due refund is paid to the complainant within 15 day; and submit compliance report within 21 days. Instead of implementing the FTO's recommendations, the department vide order dated rejected the refund claim. The taxpayer filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), which was decided on January in his favour, and the impugned order was annulled. During the pendency of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), another arbitrary order was passed u/s 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, which was also vacated by the Commissioner IR, vide order dated Muhammad Saleem, had no authority to file a criminal complaint against the taxpayers. Had they committed any offence under the Income Tax Ordinance, the only course available under the law was for the Commissioner to file a complaint before a Special Judge u/s 203 of the Ordinance. There is no law authorising filing of a criminal complaint in tax matters before a judicial magistrate, FTO maintained. Through filing an illegal, coram non judice complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad, Muhammad Saleem, maliciously contrived to create a 'bar' to the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman, as provided in

4 Section 9(2)(a) of the FTO Ordinance. Taxpayer Asif Iqbal moved repeated applications for initiating defiance proceedings u/s 12 of the FTO Ordinance, followed by a complaint (No 381/LHR/IT(310)/737/2011) dated July for implementation of Findings/ Recommendations in earlier complaint No 325/LHR/IT(269)/ 591/2010. The implementation complaint dated was decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman on December 19, FTO stated that the web of deception and highhandedness woven with mala fide intent by Muhammad Saleem, with the sole motive to impede and obstruct the implementation of Findings/ Recommendations of the Federal Tax Ombudsman, falls within the mischief of Section 16(a) of the FTO Ordinance. Muhammad Saleem, has been using intemperate language, attributing improper motives and using derogatory and contemptuous statements that amount to scurrilous attack on integrity, honesty, reputation, judicial competence and impartiality of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman, thereby undermining the high confidence which the citizens in general and taxpayers in particular repose in its working and bringing it into hatred, ridicule and contempt, all of which attract Section 16(b) of the FTO Ordinance. "You (Saleem), are called upon to show cause as to why you should not be punished for committing the contempt of the Federal Tax Ombudsman, under the FTO Ordinance", Dr Suddle said. The Respondent (tax official) has based his defence primarily on the proceedings instituted by him in the Lahore High Court against the FTO and the FTO's Advisor. All the writs have since been dismissed/ disposed of. The contentions of the respondent have been upheld in none of the proceedings. The respondent also represented to the President of Pakistan, under section 32 of the FTO Ordinance, against the show cause notice of contempt. This representation was also rejected. The proceedings for punishing the respondent for contempt were initiated under Section 16 of the FTO Ordinance. The respondent obstructed, impeded and disobeyed the orders of the

5 FTO. He scandalised the FTO Office, bringing it into contempt in the eyes of the general public. The obstruction of the process of the FTO is established through the orders of the Appellate Commissioner, the Appellate Tribunal, the Magistrate, the Lahore High Court, and of the President. The Respondent took wilful steps to impede implementation of the recommendations of the FTO, to disobey his lawful orders, as also to repeatedly scandalise the FTO Office. The use of contemptuous or derogatory language through proceedings in courts of law does not confer inviolability. FTO said that he had no defence to offer, except an apology. This was not an apology that can purge the contempt. The Respondent was unable to satisfy the FTO that his regret and repentance were sincere. Language used by the Respondent in the proceedings instituted by him in the Lahore High Court, ex facie, was scurrilous, disrespectful, highly derogatory and insulting. The charge of contempt of the FTO as defined in section 16(a) and section 16 (b) of the Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000, read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Ordinance 2003, stands proved. The Respondent, Muhammad Saleem, is hereby convicted of the charge. The language used by him alone demands full dose of sentence. However, taking into account his - belated - apology as a mitigating circumstance, he is sentenced to three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50,000 or in default to suffer further simple imprisonment of 15 days, FTO's judgement added.