1993 PLP 1438 (SCMR)
S. MANZOOR RAZA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MEMBER (ADMN.), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1438 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | S. MANZOOR RAZA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MEMBER (ADMN.), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1438 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1438 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1438 (SCMR) (S. MANZOOR RAZA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MEMBER (ADMN.), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Naseem, Advocate and Harm Abdul Baqi, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 2nd May, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 29‑G‑1992/26‑7‑1992 passed in Appeal No. 110(K) of 1988). ‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case considering the past history of the assessee and the complaint referred to the civil servant, an Assistant Income‑tax Officer, he was justified in making assessment under a certain provision of Income‑tax Law anti was as such an act in violation of any law and rule to attract the provisions of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby his appeal against departmental order of withholding four increments without cumulative effect under notification dated 26‑10‑1987 issued by the Central Board of Revenue was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is an Assistant Income‑tax Officer and during the period 1‑1‑1985 to 3‑9‑1955 he was posted as Assistant Income Tax Officer (Salary), Circle II under the charge of Commissioner of Income‑tax, Central Zone `D', Karachi. He was required individuals. He was charge‑sheeted for tax of Muhammad Ashraf Tai for the assessment year 1984-85 and for finalising the assessment within one day of receiving the duplicate return when investigation proceedings were being conducted against the assesses. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges levelled against him in which he denied the first charge and explained that the return had already been filed by the assessee on 29‑6‑1984 within time and was entered in inward register at serial No. 301 and the Inspector had prepared the assessment order arid demand notice. In respect of the second charge he referred to the past history of the assesee in which he had been assessed for last two assessment years as a salaried person and qualified for self‑assessment. In compliance with the instructions of the Central Board of Revenue the assessment was to be made in the normal way. He further pointed out that the complaint received by him was with respect to M/s. Tasli Bundoo Judo Karate Centre and not the assessee and therefore 'he had referred it back to be dealt with by the Income‑tax Officer who had the jurisdiction to deal with the assessments of association of persons. He further pleaded that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the cases of association of persons. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him from the first charge, but found him guilty of char a No. 2 and the punishment imposed was maintained in Departmental appeal as well as by the Service Tribunal.
3. Leave is granted to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case considering the past history of the assessee and the complaint referred to the petitioner, was the petitioner justified in making assessment under section 59 of the Income‑tax Ordinance and was such an act in violation of any law and rule to attract the provisions of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. M.BA./S‑750/S Leave granted.