2002 PLP 1810 (PTD)

5. It was further submitted that as arrear demand was outstanding against certain Bank employees, Behzad Saqlain the then Income Tax Inspector of the circle was deputed to recover the lawful outstanding demand against employees of MCB, Sialkot. Best efforts were made for recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.42,488 from the complainant but he flatly refused to pay. Therefore, he was arrested on 18-11-1999 and on the assurance of Regional Chief MCB, released on the same date. Instead of making payment of tax demand, the complainant filed a suit in the Civil Court against the Inspector 'and Assessing Officer claiming damages.

6. The complainant subsequently filed affidavits of 44 Bank employees. Most of them stated that the tax employees of Sialkot Zone usually demand illegal gratification for finalization of the assessment order. They named the Income-tax Inspector Behzad Saqlain and Special Recovery Officer Muhammad Sarwar Qadri who were directly involved in demanding bribe from the Bank employees and harassing them.

7. The complainant after receiving copy of the comments submitted by the Department filed further clarification and stated that the complaint is not in respect of the tax liabilities or for directions to the Department to make reassessment order but it is a complaint against those Income Tax Officials who have demanded bribe and harassed the Bank employees.

8. After perusal of the contents of the complaint, it seems that the main allegation is about demand of illegal gratification for finalizing the assessment particularly in cases where the deduction of tax had fallen short of the actual tax. As the complainant did not pay, recovery proceedings were initiated against him and other Bank employees. In view of sections 50(1), 52, 52-A and 86 it is clear that the unpaid tax can' be recovered from the deducting authority or the assessee himself. Here the dispute is about the modus operandi of the officers and staff of the Department in recovering the tax. There is sufficient evidence that the complainant had been complaining against Behzad Saqlain and Muhammad Sarwar Qadri for demanding bribe and harassing the staff members. The complainant had protested against such behaviour and demands. There was an atmosphere, of animosity and hostility. In this background it is to be considered whether the recovery action taken by the said officers was proper or suffered from mala fide intended to harass the complainant. The complainant was an employee of the Bank. The Recovery Officer could have adopted the procedure as provided under section 93 viz. (i) attachment and sale of movable or immovable property of the assessee; (ii) appointment of receiver and (iii) arrest and detention in prison. The arrest and detention is the harshest of all the three modes which should be resorted to as a last resort in cases where the assessee does not own any property and there is likelihood of running away or disposing of the property with intention to delay or defeat the recovery. There is nothing on record to justify such harsh action of arrest and detention. It was open to attach his salary, Bank account if any and above all in any case recovery could be made from the Bank which had short deducted the tax. There was hardly any justification to arrest the complainant. The entire action seems to be a revenge action against him by Behzad Saqlain and Muhammad Sarwar Qadri as allegations and complaints were made by the complainant who is the President of the Muslim Commercial Bank Officers Association and was vocal and in the forefront in the campaign against them.

9. The second issue in the complaint is that the Income Tax Inspector and other tax employees of the Sialkot Zone from time to time approached the complainant and other Bank employees for recovery of tax demand by showing tax demand notices and asking for illegal gratification to finalize it favourably. In this regard seven witnesses were examined on oath.

10. The Income-tax Inspector Behzad Saqlain was directed to file his reply to the complaint. He submitted that he remained posted in Circle-3 from 1-10-1999 to 15-2-2000 and during his posting period on the direction of higher' officer he made efforts for recovery of outstanding tax demand from the complainant. On refusal to pay the outstanding tax the complainant was arrested but released on the same day. He denied all the allegations, regarding demand of illegal gratification. He further submitted that the Bank employees who have filed affidavits against him had filed their return of income under sections 59(i) and '59(A) of the Ordinance and the declared version was accepted, therefore, question of alleged demand does not arise. He filed the copies of order sheets of 15 Bank employees which show that their assessment has been finalized. Most of these assessments were finalized after the controversial issues were raised and the complainant had been arrested. These assessments can hardly support the contention of Behzad Saqlain.

11. Now reverting to the evidence of the witnesses it can be seen that the officers concerned could not rebut or contradict their testimony in spite of cross-examination. P.W. Tasnimuddin was examined on oath. He deposed that Income-tax Inspector Behzad Saqlain had demanded. Rs.10,000 from him as bribe. Due to threat he paid Rs.3,000 through cheque. P.W. Inayat Khan deposed in his statement that:

"In my presence the people from the Department had demanded bribe for quashing up the entire matter. Sqlain an Inspector had taken bribe through a cheque from one Tasnimuddin who was working in Dara Aain Branch."

12. P.W. Muhammad Saleem Butt in his affidavit stated that in his presence Income-tax- Inspector Behzad Saqlain received Rs.3,000 through a cheque. Both Mr. Abdul Rasheed, DCIT, Sialkot who was representing the Department and Behzad Saqlain cross-examined the witness but no contradiction or infirmity could be brought out who supported the statement of Tasnimuddin. P.W. Muhammad Saleem during cross-examination stated that: "Tasnimuddin prepared a cheque of Rs.3,000 and delivered it to Behzad who was sitting before me. Tasnimuddin had signed on the back side of the cheque."

13. P.W. Muhammad Razzak Ahmed in his affidavit alleged that Income Tax Inspector and other income-tax employees used to take bribe from him: During cross-examination in reply to a question by Behzad Saqlain he stated that: "You had visited my Branch and demanded bribe. I paid Rs.2,000 for settlement of my tax demand."

14. There are number of other witnesses who 'have filed their affidavits stating therein that Inspector Behzad Saqlain and other tax employees of Sialkot demanded bribe. In spite of opportunity afforded to produce evidence in defence Behzad Saqlain did not produce any witness for examination. He only filed written arguments. From the overwhelming evidence on record the allegations of demanding and charging of bribe, harassment and illegal gratification are established against Behzad Saqlain. During evidence of P.Ws. the name of Molvi Siddiq was mentioned alleging that he also demanded bribe for finalizing the assessment favourably. It is also established that the Tax Employee of the Income Tax Department frequently visited the office of the Bank demanding money for finalizing and completing the assessment. In another case similar complaint was made by an employee of a Company and the staff member was demoted and transferred. It seems that assessment order of the employees Circle is not finalized nor it is delivered to the assessee arid tax employee contact the assessees for bargaining. This reprehensible practice has been deprecated in another complaint-but it seems to persist.

15. It is recommended that: (i) Disciplinary action against Behzad Saqlain be taken under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1973. (ii) Behzad Saqlain, Molvi Siddiq and Muhammad Sarwar Qadri be transferred to different Zone. (iii) Compliance re (i) be reported within 45 days. Compliance re (ii) be reported within 30 days. ' S.A.K./243/FTO Order accordingly