More investigation needed to know role of all officers involved in handling tax refund process
KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has issued its detailed order on bail petitions of two Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) officers who were arrested for their alleged involvement in a case pertaining to issuance of Sale Tax Refund claims worth Rs 44.53 million deceitfully.
Earlier on July 15, the court through a short order had ordered release of Sarfaraz Ahmed, deputy superintendent of the FBR and Syed Arif Raza, then superintendent FBR on bail with surety of Rs 500,000 million each.
As per details, National Accountability Bureau (NAB), in its reference No.18 of 2015, alleged that both accused were involved in misuse of authority and issuance of illegal sales tax refunds on fake invoices. NAB added in reference that H&Y Enterprises in connivance with the arrested FBR persons used false invoices of 28 fake suppliers to gain fraudulent refunds.
NAB also took stand in the case that as per Rule No-6 of Sales Tax Refund Rules 2002 it was their duty to process a claim after he is fully satisfied about the veracity and admissibility of the claims.
Advocate Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi and Shaukat Hayat on behalf of the petitioners submitted that they were very honest and never circumvent any relevant rules or regulations relating their duties or refund of sale tax claims.
They said initially an inquiry was initiated on the basis of a complaint in 2006 but it was closed in 2012. Thus this fresh inquiry was without jurisdiction, they argued.
The counsel for NAB contended that both accused had played their active roles in the commission of offence and there were reasonable grounds to believe that they were involved in the corruption.
In the detailed verdict, the court observed that no doubt it is well settled proposition of law that deeper appreciation evidence is not permissible at bail stage but keeping in view of role assigned to present petitioners, it is essential to see whether they were sole authority or at the helm of affairs to pass the refund claims by their own or for dealing the matter of refund of claims a chain of command is involved making obvious the role and responsibility of different officers starting from the stage of submission of refund claims till issuance amount.
Whether petitioners are responsible for the process of refund claims unlawfully or illegally or they were sole absolute authority to sanction claims, this requires further inquiry.
To a specific question about incriminating material collected regarding petitioners’ involvement in the offence, the NAB’s counsel replied no such corroborating was collected.
It is settled that object of trial is make an accused to face trial and not to punish an under trial prisoner. Its basic idea is to enable the accused to answer the prosecution against him rather than to rot him behind the bars.
