Police officers walk past Pakistan’s Supreme Court building, in Islamabad, Pakistan, April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the filing of frivolous cases by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). He has directed the tax collector to constitute committees to review the cases before going to court.
“To address this issue, it is imperative that the FBR Chairman consider constituting committees that function with the highest degree of independence and include a retired judge of the higher judiciary, an experienced tax professional and senior serving or retired FBR officials with distinguished track records and impeccable credentials.
“These committees should be mandated to review each case in a timely manner before a decision is made to file a reference to a higher court or a petition to this court.
“The FBR may also consider undertaking a review of all pending cases to ascertain whether the questions of law sought to be agitated are already resolved by judgments of the higher courts,” said a six-page judgment written by Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb.
Justice Aurangzeb was part of a three-member bench, headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, that dismissed an FBR petition in a taxpayer-related matter.
The court lamented that when government departments routinely file appeals or petitions (often before higher courts and the Supreme Court) on questions of law that have already been authoritatively decided, the practice results in serious institutional harm.
“The most immediate consequence is the obstruction of judicial records. Courts are forced to spend little judicial time reviewing issues that are no longer res integra, at the expense of undecided legal and constitutional issues, criminal appeals that affect personal liberty, and civil disputes pending for years.
“This undermines the constitutional mandate of speedy justice. Repeated appeals or petitions on established law weaken respect for Article 189 of the Constitution, the doctrine of stare decisis and judicial discipline within the executive branch.
The ruling noted that when the State itself ignores binding precedents, it sends wrong signals to subordinate courts, tribunals and litigants.
Such appeals and petitions, he said, result in inevitable litigation costs and consumption of public funds for lawyers, court fees and administrative processes.
The court further observed that the State is expected to act as a responsible and fair litigant, not as a compulsive appellant or petitioner. The practice and tendency within government departments to file appeals or petitions mechanically (particularly when the outcome is foreseeable in light of established law) has already been disapproved by the court in previous rulings.
The court also noted that it already has constitutional authority and jurisprudential tools to address the problem of repeated appeals or petitions by government departments on already resolved questions of law.
“Not only can courts dismiss such appeals or petitions in limine, but one of the most effective tools is the imposition of costs. In egregious cases, courts can also require identification of the official who authorized the filing of the appeal or petition.
“It is imperative that there is internal accountability within government departments and careful legal scrutiny before appeals or petitions are filed.
“Had such scrutiny been carried out before the filing of the present petition, it would have been realized that the main question of law sought to be raised is already authoritatively resolved by a series of judgments of this court.”
The judgment further noted that despite the law laid down by the SC, binding on the FBR under Article 189 of the Constitution, the petitioners attempted to “reinvent the wheel” by arguing that the time limit of 120 days prescribed in the first proviso of Section 11(5), superseded by Section 11G(2) of the 1990 Act, for passing an order is directory rather than mandatory.
