KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has sought comments from the tax authorities on a petition filed by senior lawyer and former president of the Sindh High Court Bar Association Abid S Zubari against a show cause notice of the FBR asking him to submit the details of properties and all kinds of expenses during the period from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014.
A division bench of the shc, comprising Justice Nadeem Akhtar and Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal, heard the petition. During the hearing, the counsel for the respondent department requested for some time to submit its comments. Therefore, the court continued interim order made earlier in which it had restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. The court adjourned the hearing until August 15, 2016.
You might also like
Earlier, Federal Board of Revenue ( FBR ) issued notice to Abid S Zuberi who is a leading lawyer of Supreme Court of Pakistan and Sindh High Court (SHC). The petitioner was informed that there are many cases of individuals which he had represented in the SHC and these cases appear on the cause list but these were not mentioned in your clients list.
The notice stated that it is particularly impossible that you are taking these clients and contesting their cases without getting any fee from them. “You were asked to provide the details by business capital, but you have failed to provide the details of business capital and others,” the notice added.
“You remained failed to provide any receipt, ledger accounts and vouchers in respect of expenses claimed. As you did not provide said information and relevant documents, why the proceedings should not be initiated against you,” the show cause notice stated.
However, petitioner’s counsel stated that in last five years, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs 39,136,919 on the account of income tax alone. However, tax authorities issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on May 19,2016.
The petitioner submitted that the return of the petitioner through professional activities as a lawyer does not fall under entry 47 of the fourth schedule to the constitution and hence the 2001 ordinance is not applicable to the petitioner.
Citing secretary Ministry of Finance, chairman FBR, Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone – I Regional Tax Office, assistant commissioner Inland Revenue Audit -6, Zone – I as respondents, the petitioner pleaded the SHC to declare that entire proceedings or orders passed or demand, if any, as malafide and without jurisdiction. The court was further requested toset aside impugned notices and restrain the respondents from taking any coercive measures.
