SAIF NADEEM ELECTRO LTD. (ASHFAQ AHMED, ATTORNEY) LAHORE CANTT. VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2002 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 1970 (2002)

Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 2(3)‑‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.179‑‑‑Maladministration‑‑ Delay in passing fresh orders‑‑‑Adjudicating Authority was under a legal obligation‑ to decide the case within 45 days but in the present case, no outcome was evident even after a lapse of 5 years and it was regrettable that Officers of the Revenue so blatantly disregard the .law, rules, regulations and instructions as respects facility to the taxpayers‑‑‑Care was understandably to be exercised to protect Government revenue but not at the cost of convenience to the taxpayers which was also to be kept in view‑‑‑Delay in adjudication was denial of justice to a citizen who had waited for too long in getting finality to the case which was a classic example of "maladministration" caused by indifference of the concerned Authorities‑‑‑ Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the matter be decided within three weeks.

Ashfaq Ahmad for the Complainant.

Sadiq Ullah Khan, D.C., Customs for Respondent.

DECISION/FINDINGS

The Complainant‑Company alleges 'maladministration on the part of Assistant Collector, Customs, Haripur due to delay in passing fresh orders to give effect to Order in Appeal (1629‑1630/96), dated 18‑12‑1996 against a demand raised on 15‑2‑1994 at Rs.36,935 and Rs.93,879 on 21‑2‑1993.

2. The facts as these emerged on discussion with the two Representatives; are that on 15‑2‑1994 demand was raised at Rs.36,935 and Rs.93,897 on 21‑2‑1993 when the Director‑General, Audit Revenue Receipts, Lahore pointed out that the complainant did not pay penal surcharge @ 2% under section 598 of the Customs Act, 1969. On appeal both the orders were set aside and remanded back on 18:12‑1996 for decision de novo according to the instructions in the appellate order. The respondent Adjudicating Officer fixed the case for hearing from time to time but it is well over five years that the matter is lingering on for one reason or the other. It was now listed .for hearing on 30‑10‑2001 but the Complainant (admits) not being able to attend in person requested on phone, that the case may be decided on merits on the basis of material available on record to which he would have no objection. It was further submitted that under the Customs Act the Adjudicating Authority is under a legal obligation to decide the case within 45 days but surprisingly no outcome is evident even after a lapse of 5 years. The representative of the respondent firmly and categorically assured that, the matter would be decided within a week.

3. It is regrettable that officers of the Revenue so blatantly disregard the law, rules, regulations and instructions as respects facility to the taxpayers. Whereas it is understand hat care is to be exercised to protect Government revenue, the same soul of convenience of the taxpayers. In the present case delay in adjudication is denial of justice to a citizen who has waited for too long in getting finality to the case. This is a classic example of 'maladministration' caused by indifference. It is, therefore, recommended:

(i) The matter be decided within three weeks.

(ii) Compliance to be reported within 30 days.

C.M.A./M.A.K./302/FTOComplaint accepted.