Hafiz GULZAR AHMAD, FAISALABAD VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2002 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 2140 (2002)

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

‑‑‑‑Ss.9 & 14(4)‑‑‑Complaint against officials of Income‑tax Department alleging harassment, bribery and corruption‑‑‑Withdrawal of such complaint through a letter‑‑‑False and frivolous complaint‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman observed that complainants must realize not to make frivolous and false applications and after making complaint not to withdraw on false grounds or under pressure of the persons concerned‑‑ Officers concerned should be fair and adopt a policy of not to meddle in investigation by pressurizing anyone directly or indirectly‑‑‑Serious view could have been taken in the matter but considering the present state of the complainant, Federal Tax Ombudsman awarded Rs.1,000 cost to the department to be realized from the complainant as arrears of the land revenue and be deposited in the Government Treasury.

DECISION/FINDINGS

The, complainant had filed a complaint making allegations against the officials of the department of harassment, bribery and corruption. The department denied the allegations. On the date of hearing although the complainant remained absent, he had sent a letter, dated 12‑1‑2002 that having come to know about the falsity of complaint during enquiry he does not wish to proceed and prayed for withdrawal of the case. While disposing of the complaint a serious note of this development was taken, as either the complaint was false or the complainant was pressurized to withdraw the complaint. However, as the complainant had insisted to withdraw the complaint a notice was issued to him to show cause why compensation should not be awarded to the Revenue Division for making false and frivolous complaint. Although notice was served and he was required to appear personally on 7‑2‑2002 he remained absent and sent an application stating that being an old man suffering from diabetes and blood pressure and defective eyesight he was unable to appear on the date of hearing. He reiterated what he had stated earlier and further stated that he is a poor man and cannot afford the expense. A medical certificate was also attached.

2. I have considered all aspects of the case and this is high time that complainants must realize not to make frivolous and false applications and after making complaint not to withdraw on false grounds or under pressure of the persons concerned. It may also be mentioned that the Officers concerned should be fair and adopt a policy of not to meddle in investigation by pressurizing anyone directly or indirectly. A serious view could have been taken in the matter but considering the present state of the complainant I awarded Rs.1,000 cost to the department to be realized from the complainant as arrears of land Revenue and deposited in the Government Treasury.

C.M.A./M.A.K./287/FTOOrder accordingly.