IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.D-4531 of 2015

___________________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________________

Present:

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi

Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad

Hearing / Priority Case:

For hearing of main case.

-----------

21^st October 2020

Mr. Muhammad Abbas, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Ameer Bukhsh Metlo, Advocate for Respondent.

-*-*-*-*-*-

O R D E R

Through instant Constitution Petition, petitioner has sought implementation of the order of Federal Tax Ombudsman dated 30.06.2015 passed in Review Petition No.10/2015 in Complaint No.365/Khi/FE(22)1271/2014, whereby, according to learned counsel for petitioner, directions have been issued to the FBR to settle the complainant’s claim of reward in the light of Unified Reward Rules 2006. In the instant petition, a declaration has also been sought to the effect that recommendations given by the Federal Tax Ombudsman vide order dated 30.12.2010 in Review Application No.76/2010 in Complaint No.424-K/2010 may also be implemented.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents are under legal obligations to process the claim of complainant for issuance of reward, as according to learned counsel, in view of credible information given by the petitioner to the Tax Authorities, about tax evasion by subject company/taxpayer, reward become due to the petitioner. However, according to learned counsel, the request of petitioner has not been acceded by the respondents, therefore, instant petition has been filed with a request to direct respondents to issue reward to the petitioner.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner and has submitted that neither any credible information or material was provided by the petitioner to the respondent department nor any assessment has been made or recovery of tax has been affected pursuant to such purported information. On the contrary, according to learned counsel, proceedings in the case were initiated on the basis of information provided by the Intelligence Agency. It has been further contended by learned counsel for respondents that nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the claim of petitioner, whereas, instant petition is otherwise misconceived and is liable to be dismissed, as it contains the seriously disputed facts.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record with their assistance and have observed that no material has been placed on record to justify the claim of the petitioner to the effect that on the basis of some credible information or the material provided by the petitioner to the Tax Authorities regarding tax evasion by a taxpayer, is available on record. Nothing has been produced to support the claim of petitioner to the effect that any assessment or recovery of tax was made by the Tax Authorities on the basis of any information or material provided by the petitioner. Moreover, it has been further observed that orders in this case have been passed by Commissioner, LTU, Islamabad, therefore, this petition also suffers from jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the instant petition, which is dismissed for the reason that facts have been seriously disputed, whereas, this Court, lacks territorial jurisdiction as well. However, petitioner will be at liberty to approach the relevant forum/Court, having proper jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law.

J U D G E

Nadeem/PA