The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) contradicted Sarina Isa’s statement that she had not filed tax returns since 2008.
The revenue authority submitted its report in the apex court to verify claims of Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s wife that she had stopped filing tax returns post-2008 as she was unemployed by then.
A 10-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, hearing the case regarding proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against Justice Isa, had sought verification from the board.
In its letter, the board stated that Sarina Isa had filed an application seeking transfer of her tax account from Islamabad to Karachi on January 27.
“Mrs Isa was appraised that she could file her tax declarations online under Section 114 of the Income Tax Order, 2001 from anywhere in and outside Pakistan and the fact of vesting of jurisdiction with one tax officer or the other did not, in any manner, hinder the process,” said the FBR.
Subsequently, her case was transferred to Karachi on January 30. The FBR explained that the “assignment of jurisdiction falls within the administrative domain of the FBR unless objected by the taxpayer under Section 209(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001.”
The board went on to add that Sarina’s statement that she stopped filing tax when she left her job and sold the property in June 2008 “is not corroborated” since she filed tax returns for the years 2008 through 2011 manually and online for years 2012 through 2014.
“She did not file tax declarations for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018,” FBR added. “She was issued system-generated notices under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001.”
In May 2019, a presidential reference was filed in the Supreme Judicial Council against Justice Isa alleging non-disclosure of assets in his wealth statement. In his reply, the top judge maintained that he was neither answerable for the assets of his wife nor adult offspring nor was he under obligation to disclose any information concerning them.
Challenging the allegation, Justice Isa said the presidential references are filed under “malice, ulterior motives and to achieve a collateral purpose and to humiliate, subjugate and browbeat the judiciary, destroy the judiciary’s independence and make the judiciary subservient to the executive by subverting the Constitution.”
In his constitutional plea, Justice Isa also sought a stay in the SJC proceedings against him till the matter was decided in the top court.
The council, however, maintains that the proceedings are immune from a judicial review under Article 211 of the constitution.
In another petition seeking a full-court, Justice Isa had underscored that the ‘possibility’ of the judge being swayed over a personal advantage is a ground for recusal under Article 4 of the Code of Conduct of Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Pakistan. Consequently, Justice Masood and Justice Ahsan recused themselves from the bench.
