Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 11/340 of 1979, decided on 10th February, 1980.

------S. 4‑Excise and Taxation Officers charged for under assessment of Capital Gain Tax‑Record proving negligence and carelessness resulting in loss to Government‑Penalty of reduction of pay by Rs. 50, imposed‑‑Interference refused‑Penalty, held, not excessive.

This appeal is against the order dated 23‑8‑1978 of the Secretary Excise & Taxation (respondent) whereby the appellant's pay was reduced by Rs. 50, p. m. after an enquiry into a number of charges against him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. A review petition to the Governor remained fruitless, hence the appellant's recourse to this Tribunal.

2. The charges against the appellant are as follows:‑‑

(a) Mr. Nasir, Excise and Taxation Officer grossly under‑assessed capital gain in respect of plot bearing Khasra Nos. 109, 108, 681/107‑1 measuring 4 kanals and 2 marlas situated on Circular Road, Sialkot and owned by Begum Amtil Latif w/o Mr. T. M. Sheikh by allowing inflated cost price amounting to Rs. 1,78,900 including Rs. 1,35,000, on account of alleged earth filling and construction of boundary walls. Prima facie a loss of Rs. 12,062.50 was dishonestly caused to the Exchequer.

(b) In the case of assessment of Capital Gain Tax on the sale of 9 marlas plot bearing Khasra No. 1025/70 and owned by Ch. Muhammad Shafi son of Ch. Nawab Din for a sum of Rs. 19,500 a tax of Rs. 391.25 was initially demanded as evidenced by photostat copy of the tax demand notice on record but later on the assessee was declared to be non‑taxable. This shows that the original tax demand was exemption was collusive and manipulated one.

(c) Other instances of manoeuvred or collusive under assessment of Capital Gains Tax for ulterior purposes are as follows:‑‑

(i) Property No. BV‑115‑19 Sialkot.

(ii) BI‑4S‑22/24

(iii) BXXI‑18S‑302

(iv) BVIII‑48‑18

3. The appellant was served with a charge‑sheet on 13‑6‑1977 and simultaneously Mr. Muhammad Munir, a Director of Excise & Taxation, was appointed Enquiry Officer who submitted his report on 15‑12‑1977. Previously two preliminary enquiries had been held into the charges by Mr. Muhammad Aslant Sindhu, Taxation Inspector (junior in rank to the appellant) and by Mr. Saleem Akhtar, an Excise & Taxation Officer like the appellant. ''While the former found that the appellant had under‑assessed in 7 cases, the latter found him guilty on 4 charges and suggested further investigation in the 3 other charges.

4. The Enquiry Officer (Mr. Muhammad Munir) went into both the preliminary reports and gave his detailed findings on all the charges. In each case he held that the appellant bad been negligent and this had resulted in depriving Government of legitimate revenue. He concluded by saying that all the charges against the appellant stood proved,

5. The appellant was heard. He has impugned the order of the respondent on the grounds that it is not based on any evidence or material to substantiate any charge and is, therefore, mala fide and illegal, The only mala fide actually alleged by the appellant is in respect of Mr. Amin Haider, Director E. & T., Lahore, but since this gentleman was not the enquiry officer we cannot accept the allegation as relevant. The appellant has criticized the Enquiry Officer for "the incorrect and misleading statement . . . . in his enquiry report regarding all charges having been proved whereas he had not said even a single word about 6 charges".

6. We .have gone through the Enquiry Report. We are afraid we cannot agree wish the appellant that the Enquiry Officer has said nothing about 6 charges. The Enquiry Officer has, in clear words, found the appellant guilty of negligence in all the 6 cases and thereby held him responsible for causing monetary loss to tire Government.

7. The appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself both at the enquiry stage and the appeal stage. After hearing the parties and perusing the enquiry report and other documents we feel drat the appellant has not, been able to refute the charges. We are inclined to agree that in respect of the 6 charges, the appellant did show negligence and carelessness which resulted in loss of revenue to the Government.

We find, moreover, that the penalty imposed on the appellant, i. e reduction of pay by Rs. 50 p. m., is act excessive in the light of the proved charges and consequently dismiss the appeal. There will be no order regarding costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.