• Throws out FBR enchantment in 2023-24 tax matter
• Orders scrutiny of circumstances by vetting panels earlier than shifting courts
• Regrets valuable judicial time being spent on settled points on the expense of different circumstances
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Courtroom on Monday frowned upon the tendency of approaching appellate courts by authorities departments in a mechanical means by submitting frivolous petitions on settled ideas.
In a six-page judgment on a tax matter, a three-member SC bench noticed that the state is anticipated to behave responsibly as a good litigant and never as a compulsive appellant/petitioner and directed the Federal Board of Income (FBR) chairman to find out whether or not the questions of regulation sought to be agitated earlier than the courtroom has already stood settled by superior courtroom judgments.
Authored by Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, a member of the bench headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, the judgment declared it crucial for the FBR chairman to contemplate constituting committees to vet every reference earlier than submitting it in a courtroom of regulation.
To deal with the issue, in accordance with the judgment, these committees ought to have the mandate to well timed look at every case and performance with the best diploma of independence. The committees might embrace a retired decide of the superior judiciary, an skilled tax practitioner and a senior serving or retired officer of the FBR with distinguished document and impeccable credentials.
The ruling got here on an enchantment of Assistant Commissioner, Inland Income Unit-III Zone-Cantt, Regional Tax Workplace, Rawalpindi, towards the March 10, 2025 resolution of the Lahore Excessive Courtroom (LHC) in favor of a non-public taxpayer.
The dispute originated when a discover was issued by the RTO, Rawalpindi, to 1 Umer Tariq Khan on Nov 15, 2023, alleging inadmissible enter of Rs4 million tax. The order imposing the tax legal responsibility was handed on March 20, 2024, past the 120-day interval stipulated below Part 11(5) of the Gross sales Tax Act, 1990.
The taxpayer challenged the order earlier than the LHC, which whereas counting on an earlier precedent in Inland Income Commissioner vs. POF Welfare Packages SC judgments dominated that “time restrict was necessary”. The FBR then filed an enchantment earlier than the SC, which rejected it.
The SC judgment famous that authorities departments generally tend to file appeals/petitions mechanically, notably when the end result was foreseeable in gentle of settled regulation, however that had already been deprecated by the apex courtroom in various judgments.
The bench made it clear that the courts possessed each constitutional authority and jurisprudential instruments to handle the issue of repeated appeals or petitions by authorities departments on settled questions of regulation. It defined the courts may dismiss such appeals/petitions in limine (rejecting pleas at a really preliminary stage even earlier than issuing discover to respondents), sought identification of the officer for authorizing the appeals/petitions, and even impose prices. With this rationalization, the courtroom emphasised on “inside accountability” by authorities departments and “cautious authorized scrutiny” earlier than submitting appeals/petitions.
“Had such scrutiny taken place earlier than the submitting of the moment petition, it will have been realized that the first query of regulation sought to be agitated by the petitioners already stands authoritatively settled by various SC judgments,” the judgment defined.
‘Severe institutional hurt’
When the federal government departments routinely file appeals/petitions, usually as much as the excessive courts and the SC on questions of regulation which have already been authoritatively settled, it famous, the apply leads to “severe institutional hurt” corresponding to piling up of different circumstances with courts spending scarce judicial time revisiting the settled points at the price of undecided authorized and constitutional questions, felony appeals involving private liberty, and civil disputes pending for years. This entire train undermines the constitutional mandate of speedy justice, it noticed.
Within the current petition, the division didn’t take the bottom that the delay in passing of the ‘Order-in-Authentic’ was as a result of frequent adjournments taken by the respondents. The division tried to introduce this floor by submitting an utility whereby it was pleaded inter alia that the taxpayer had sought a number of adjournments from Nov 27, 2023 to Jan 4, 2024 within the proceedings earlier than the evaluation officer.
Nonetheless, the division didn’t trouble to file a replica of the order sheet of the proceedings earlier than the evaluation officer, the judgment regretted, including this assertion of the division was belied earlier than the excessive courtroom.
When the state itself disregards binding precedents, it sends the incorrect indicators to subordinate courts, tribunals, and litigants. Such appeals/petitions end in unavoidable litigation prices, consumption of public funds for counsel, courtroom charges and administrative processing, the judgment regretted.
Printed in Daybreak, February third, 2026
