2002 PLP 2007 (PTD)

22‑10‑1999 26‑1‑2000 2‑2‑2000 2‑2‑2000 10‑4‑2000 17‑4‑2000 17‑4‑2000 13‑5‑2000 23‑5‑2000 23‑5‑2000 25‑6‑2001 25‑8‑2001 26‑8‑2001"

7. It is pertinent to note that the D.C. (Adjudication‑III) passed Order No.351 of 2001 on 25‑6‑2001 i.e. after a lapse of more than one year from the date of issue of show‑cause notice on 13‑5‑2000. It was, therefore, imperative on the part of the D.C. to issue a fresh show‑cause notice before passing the aforesaid order. He was also required before passing the order to ascertain as to whether the notice for hearing of the case on 28‑8‑2000 was properly served on the complainant or not.

8. The complainant has vehemently contended that all the five show‑cause notices referred to above were issued from 2‑8‑1999 to 13‑5‑2000 bearing old Sales Tax Registration No. for alleged default of non‑filing of Sales Tax returns. He has further stated that he responded promptly to each show‑cause notice. stating therein that his Sales Tax Registration No. was changed by the Department and he was allotted new Sales Tax Registration No. vide certificate issued by the Department, dated 13‑9‑1997 but unfortunately nobody bothered to look into his replies which resulted in harassment and imposition of undue and unjustified penalty vide order, dated 25‑6‑2001.

9. The grievances of the complainant seem to be quite well founded considering the copies of documents filed by him in support thereof.

10. The respondent, instead of filing parawise comments on the complaint forward on 29‑9‑2001 filed a copy of order under section 45A(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, dated 13‑10‑2001 ‑passed by the Collector of Customs, ST & CE (Adjudication) Karachi‑III after the notice of the complainant was served. He redressed the grievance and after narrating the facts that fresh Sales Tax Registration Number was allotted to the complainant, it was observed as follows:‑‑‑ "The respondents complied but the Collectorate miserably failed to set the house in order. Their Computer Section which is the apple of the Collectorate's eyes failed to incorporate and integrate the change in their data, and the respondents were issued show‑cause notices for non‑filing of returns. The adjudication blindly followed the contents of the show‑cause notice and an order was passed which applied mutatis mutandis to them as well. Aggrieved with the impugned Order‑in -Original, the respondents have sought redressal from the Honourable Federal Tax Ombudsman.

3. I have gone through the record of the case and I have to make the following observations:‑‑‑ (a) Messrs A.B. International Agency, 24 Machiyara Square, Muljee Street, Kharadar, Karachi have been unduly harassed an punished for an offence which was not committed by them. (b) Computer Section of the Collectorate is gradually becoming a white elephant where the honoured taxpayers are treated as subjects, where the routine services are performed as a matter of favour, and where such lapses are not, only deliberate but contumacious. (4) I, therefore, shelve that portion of the Order‑in‑Original No.351 of 2001, dated 25‑6‑2001 which concerns the respondents i.e., Messrs. A.B. International Agency, 24, Machiyara Square, Muljee Street Kharadar, Karachi I also direct that a thorough enquiry be conducted into the lackadaisical nature of the working of the Computer Section of the Collectorate.

11. Although the grievances of the complainant as stated in his complaint; dated 22‑9‑2001 filed in this Secretariat have been redressed by the order of the Collector (Adjudication), Karachi‑III, dated 13‑10‑2001 this would trot absolve the officials who have shown utter negligence and highly irresponsible attitude while dealing with the case of the complainant.

12. It is, therefore, recommended that: (a) C.B.R. to direct for an enquiry to fix the responsibility of the officials who have shown extreme negligence and carelessness in issuing show‑cause notices to the complainant with old Sales Tax Registration number and ignored the replies furnished by the complainant. Appropriate disciplinary action may be taken against the delinquent officials. (b) D. C. (Adjudication‑III) who passed the order, dated 25‑8‑2001 be called upon to explain as to why the said order was passed without issuing a fresh show‑cause notice and without ascertaining proper service of the notice of hearing of the case on 28‑8‑2000. Appropriate action may also be taken against him if he fails to explain the aforesaid irregularities satisfactorily. (c) The above recommendations be implemented within 45 days of the receipt of these findings and a compliance report may be sent to this office within one week thereafter. C.M.A./M.A.K./290/FTO Order accordingly.