Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHATTHA, ADVOCATE VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
2004 P T D 185
[Federal Tax Ombudsman]
Before Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman
Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHATTHA, ADVOCATE
Versus
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Complaint No. 96-L of 2003, decided on /01/.
th
June, 2003. Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)----
----S.2(3)---Maladministration---Non-payment of fee of Advocate for attending cases for two years---Claim for payment of professional fee was fired almost two years back which was not paid---Effect---Such constituted maladministration ---Regional Commissioner of Income Tax and Authorized: Representative of Revenue admitted that complainant had not been paid professional fee so far---Letters of Department regarding furnishing of duplicate bill indicated that Commissioner of Income Tax took no action for almost two years on the request of the complainant-- Federal, Tax Ombudsman recommended that the complainant be paid his professional charges as per rules forthwith.
Nemo for the Complainant.
Amjad Iqbal, IAC-for Respondent.
DECISION /FINDINGS
In this case a complaint of maladministration has been made by Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate against Commissioner of Income Tax; Faisalabad. No one has attended on behalf of the complainant. Revenue was represented, by Amjad Iqbal. This complaint is disposed of on the basis of record after hearing the AR of the Revenue.
2. It has been contended in this complaint that the complainant was appearing in the Court on behalf of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faisalabad. He submitted a bill for payment of professional fee for amount of Rs.32,370 do 20-12-2000. In June, 2001 the complainant received a telephone call from Mushtaq Ahmad Administrative Officer in the Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Faisalabad, that bill for his professional fee had been passed and that he should collect the amount from the said Administrative Officer. The complainant has further contended that next day he visited Faisalabad from Lahore but the Administrative Officer informed him that payment of his professional fee could not be made because no funds were available. The complaint further indicates that complainant visited office of CIT, Faisalabad a number of times but his bill has not been cleared. The complainant has prayed for direction to CIT, Faisalabad for payment of his professional fee.
3. The reply of the Income Tax Department has been received vide letter dated 1-3-2003 from R-CIT Central Region Multan. In his reply a preliminary objection has been taken contending that FTO's Office was established to diagnose, investigate, redress and rectify any injustice done, to the person through maladministration of Government functionaries administrating Tax Law: Since the complainant's grievance does not fall in the ambit of Administration of the Tax Law, FTO does not have any jurisdiction in this case. In this reply the R-CIT has further stated that Mushtaq Ahmed Administrative Officer has retired service in November, 2002 however, the matter regarding payment or otherwise of professional fee as claimed by the complainant is looked into and will be resolved under the rules as early as possible.
4. No one attended on behalf of the complainant to pursue this complaint. However, Amjad Iqbal, I.A.C., Faisalabad has attended on behalf of the Revenue. He has reiterated the stand taken by the R-CIT in letter dated 1-3-2003. He has also explained that on 25-2-2003 a letter was addressed to the complainant indicating that the said Administrative Officer Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad has retired from service but he has denied receipt of any bill from the complainant. According to Mr. Amjad Iqbal the complainant was requested to provide a duplicate copy of his bill and copies of decisions of the cases represented by the complainant. Mr. Amjad Iqbal, A.R., of the Revenue has further pointed out that on 19-5-2003 another letter was addressed to complainant indicating that professional fee bill amounting to Rs.33,000 was not correct because the Revenue Division vide their memorandum dated 10-8-1994, have prescribed the maximum fee for appearance in the, Court at Rs.5,000 and Rs.1,000 will be paid to the Legal Advisor for preparation of case papers and binding of the case but he has claimed Rs.5,500 for each case. The complainant has been asked to justify his claim. Mr. Amjad Iqbal has further contended that as soon as clarification and correct bill is received from the complainant he will be made payment according to rules.
5. The complaint and reply of the Revenue have been carefully examined. The arguments of the A.R. of the Revenue Department have been considered. The preliminary objection raised by the learned R-CIT is not correct because as per R-CIT's own words the F.T.O. Office was established to diagnose, investigate, redress and rectify any injustice done to a person through maladministration by functionaries administering Tax Laws. The Office of the Commissioner Income Tax is administering Tax Laws. The complainant filed his claim for payment or professional fee on 30-12-2000. For almost two years he was not paid his fee. This constituted maladministration by functionaries Administering Tax Laws. The R-CIT and A.R. of the Revenue have admitted that the complainant has not been paid professional fee so far. The learned A. R. of the Revenue has explained that on 25-3-2003. The complainant was requested to furnish a duplicate bill for his fee then on 19-5-2003 the complainant was informed that his claim was not according to the rules made by the Revenue Division on 10-8-1994. These letters clearly indicate that CIT, Faisalabad took no action for almost two years on the request of the complainant. This constitutes maladministration.
4. It is therefore, recommended:--
(1)The complainant be paid his professional charges as per rules forthwith.
(2)Compliance report be sent to this Secretariat within 30 days of receipt of these recommendations by the Revenue Division.
C.M.A./876/FTOOrder accordingly.