M.A. RAZA VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2002 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 2011 (2001)

Reward Rules, 1973‑‑‑

‑‑‑Rr. 2 & 3‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑‑Reward to informer‑‑‑Detection of evaded taxes‑‑‑Share of detecting staff and that of informer‑‑ Complainant who was member of detecting staff had not disclosed the identity of the informer who had provided information to him and also failed to show as to whether it was sent and received in the office of the Collector Customs or otherwise‑‑‑No sufficient evidence on record was available to prove that the matter was initially processed on the basis of information of informer and the complainant had any specific role in detecting evasion of tax‑‑‑Application annexed with the complaint, showed that the complainant was retired from service on 16‑4‑1994 whereas the demand‑cum‑show‑cause notice was issued on 22‑9‑1994 much after his retirement ‑‑‑Circumstances hardly proved any role of the complainant in investigation and detection of tax‑‑‑Complainant on his own showing was not an informer, as such he could not claim any reward as informer‑‑‑Complaint was rejected by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.

Complainant in person.

Imtiaz Ahmed Khan, Additional Collector Custom, Rawalpindi for Respondent.

DECISION/FINDINGS

The complainant was retired as Superintendent, Customs, Collectorate, Special Task Cell, Rawalpindi. During posting in Special Task Cell he received information through an informer that huge amount of Government taxes have been evaded by Messrs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation on import of Aircraft. The information was processed by the complainant and another member of Cell, which resulted in detection of evasion of Government dues amounting to Rs.13,56,04,996. The matter was adjudicated by Deputy Collector Customs and Messrs Pakistan International Airlines was held liable to pay the same. The Appellate Tribunal (Customs, Excise and Sales Tax), Islamabad, Bench Islamabad upheld the order‑in‑original. The complainant retired from the service on 16‑4‑1994 and thereafter ‑he wrote few letters to the Collector Customs, Rawalpindi for his share as detecting staff and the share of informer. The Collector did not respond to the complainant, therefore, he filed this complaint.

2. The Collector Rawalpindi in response to the notice submitted that an Aircraft imported by Messrs PIAC was allowed prior release in terms of section 79(4) of the Customs Act, 1969. Messrs PIAC subsequently filed a Bill of Entry No.5601, dated 3‑1‑1994 and the aircraft assessed provisionally in terms of section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 after allowing the benefit of S.R.O. 482(1)/93, dated 14‑5‑1993 and S.R.O. 488(1)/93, dated 14‑6‑1993 against an undertaking of importer to the effect that any short levied duty/taxes will be paid on demand. Post scrutiny of the import documents revealed that the Bill of Entry was not processed in the light of C.B.R.'s Order C.No.1(2) Val/91, dated 20‑1‑1992. Accordingly a demand notice, dated 22‑9‑1994 for recovery of Rs.13,56,04,996 was issued and the case was adjudicated vide Order‑in‑Original No.4/99, dated 4‑2‑1999.

3. It is further pleaded that the Messrs PIAC subsequently filed an appeal before the Collector, Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax (Appeals) against the Order‑in‑Original No.4/99. The decision of the Adjudicating Authority was upheld vide Order‑in‑Appeal. Messrs PIAC later on filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax), Islamabad Bench, Islamabad and the Tribunal directed Messrs PIAC to submit bank guarantees equivalent to the entire amount involved and remanded the case to the Collector (Appeals) for disposal of the same within one month. Messrs PIAC however has not furnished the bank guarantees despite repeated requests from the Department. The office of the Collector (Appeals) has been abolished and the case has now been transferred to the Appellate Tribunal (Customs, Excise and Sales Tax), Islamabad Bench, Islamabad and is still pending adjudication.

4. The complainant contended that the informer had given him information and on the basis of which he processed the case and detected evasion of tax.

5. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Additional Collector Custom contended that the demand‑cum‑show‑cause notice, dated 22‑9‑1994 is the first document on the basis of which the matter was initiated and it does not disclose anything about the informer. According to him the matter was noticed during the routine post importation checking and the complainant or any other person has no extraordinary role in the matter.

6. It seems from "demand‑cum‑show‑cause notice", dated 22‑9‑1994 that the Special Task Cell, Rawalpindi during post scrutiny of the import documents (Import Invoice No.14453, dated 30‑12‑1993, AI/SE 1198, dated 22‑12‑1993 and other documents) noted that the Bill of Entry has not been processed in the light of C.B.R.'s Order C. No. 1(2) Val/91, dated 20‑1‑1992.

7. Application, dated 25‑10‑1994 annexed with the complaint does not disclose the identity of the informer who had provided information to the complainant. It also does not show whether it was sent and received in the office of the Collector Customs; Rawalpindi. There is not sufficient evidence on record to prove that the matter was initially processed on the basis of information of informer and the complainant had any specific role in detecting evasion of tax.

8. The application, dated 25‑5‑1994 annexed with the complaint, shows 'that the complainant was retired from service on 16‑4‑1994 whereas the demand‑cum‑show‑cause notice was issued on 22‑9‑1994 much after retirement of the complainant. The circumstances hardly prove any role of the complainant in investigation and detection of tax. On his own showing the complainant is not an informer, as such he cannot claim any reward as informer.

9. Under the circumstances the complaint is rejected.

C.M.A./M.A.K./284/FTO Complaint rejected.