Find a Lawyer

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN versus MESSRS SAHIB JEE

ECTIONS Sections 11 and 32 O Refer to the President Against the Ombudsman Recommendation - Scope - When the Revenue Division or any person is upset over a recommendation by the Federal Tax Ombudsman under the section Establishment of the Income Tax Ombudsman Ordinance In 2000, he / she can file a representation before the President of Pakistan within 30 days of such recommendation, although not an equivalent to appeal, but this law should still be strictly banned. And applied, meaning that the representation was available only to the Revenue Division or to the bereaved, as recommended by the Federal Tax Ombudsman within 30 days. [Page 141] A

P L D 2017 Supreme Court 139

Present: Mian Saqib Nisar, C.J.,

Umar Ata Bandial and Maqbool Baqar, JJ

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad and others—Appellants

versus

Messrs SAHIB JEE and others—Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 1074 of 2009, decided on 19th January, 2017.

(Against the judgment dated 20-3-2009 of ’ the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in W.P. No. 11983 of 2005)

(a) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000)—

—Ss. 11 & 32—Reference to the President against recommendation of Ombudsman—Scope—When the Revenue Division or any person was aggrieved of a recommendation made by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in terms of S.ll of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, it/he may file a representation to the President of Pakistan within 30 days of such recommendation—Said remedy of representation, though not stricto sensu akin to an appeal, was nevertheless a statutory remedy and, therefore, the provision must be strictly construed and applied, meaning thereby that a representation was only available to either the Revenue Division or an aggrieved person as against a recommendation of the Federal Tax Ombudsman within 30 days' time. [p. 141] A

(b) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000)—

' Ss. 11 & 32—Reference to the President against recommendation of Ombudsman—Scope—Section 32 of the Ordinance, providing for representation before the President, did not envisage a representation gainst an order passed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman which was not in the nature of a recommendation, [p. 142] B

(c) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000)—

—S.14(8)—Federal Tax Ombudsman—Review, power of—Scope— Section 14(8) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 empowered the Ombudsman to review any finding communicated or recommendation made or any order passed by him—Said power of review either invoked on behalf of an aggrieved person or the Revenue Division had a wider scope and three kinds of decisions could be reviewed by the Ombudsman; first, the findings which were communicated in terms of S. 11 of the Ordinance; second, a recommendation made by him; and third, any other order passed by him. [p. 142] C

(d) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000)—

—Ss. 14(8) & 32—Reference to the President against order of Ombudsman passed in review jurisdiction—Scope—Whilst exercising power of review, if the Ombudsman sets aside his earlier decision, irrespective of whether it was a recommendation or not, and passed a new recommendation in the order of review, then such (new recommendation) shall have been passed pursuant to S. 11(1) of the Ordinance and a representation would be competent against— Conversely, where a recommendation earlier made by the Ombudsman was not set aside while exercising the power of review, the order dismissing the review petition would not tantamount to a fresh recommendation in terms of Ss.ll & 32 of the Ordinance against which a representation could be competently filed. [p. 142] D

Khalid Abbas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.

Nemo for Respondent No.l.

Ex parte: for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

( Date of hearing: 19th January, 2017. ..

solicitors from Theing Jattan More lawyer