1. RDER rough the instant appeal order dated 30.12.2023 of the Returning Officer has been assailed whereby mination papers of the appellant presenting himself as a candidate for General Elections from PP- 8, Sheikhupura-III were rejected.
2. The reasons for rejection as encapsulated by the order of the Returning Officer available at page 25 the instant file reveals that two instances of default were identified prompting rejection of mination papers. It transpired that a sum of Rs.6,688,750/- was outstanding towards FBR and an mount of Rs.476,448/- stood under the head of arrears of token tax for vehicles in the record of the cise and Taxation Department, Government of Punjab. At the hearing of this appeal on three eceding dates i.e. 05.1.2024, 07.1.2024 and 08.1.2024 stance taken by the learned counsel, Mr. Arshad hangir Jhoja, Advocate as well as the senior learned counsel who appeared on 05.1.2024, Mr. hangir A. Jhoja, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant at the time of issuance of notice was that the tstanding dues of the Excise and Taxation Department had been paid. Corresponding receipts ere placed on the file and that as to the purported liability outstanding in terms of the FBR unpaid es reliance was placed on order dated 12.4.2019 of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-III), hore in appellant's appeal No.11724 to take the stance that the entire liability recorded in the order the Returning Officer to the tune of Rs.6,688,750/- was embodied in the assessment order which as subject matter of the said appeal that was set aside as such did not present an instance of tive outstanding liability attracting such opprobrium.
3. On the input of the learned Legal Advisor Election Commission of Pakistan who said that as ormation qua default was obtained from the respective government departments upon request of e Election Commission of Pakistan to record any instance of default qua the candidates and, erefore, the respective representatives of the departments shall be in a better position as stodians of record to respond as to whether the stance taken before the Tribunal that default was eared was factually accurate.
4. Notice was accordingly issued on 07.1.2024 to respondent Nos.2 and 3, the two respective heads of e department, namely, Chairman FBR and Secretary Excise & Taxation Department, Government of njab. Learned Law Officer of the Excise and Taxation Department under the instructions from the eputy Director, Excise and Taxation Department yesterday affirmed the factum of discharge of the rears of Motor Vehicle Tax outstanding against the appellant and recorded the statement that thing was due from the appellant under the head of Motor Vehicle Tax after payment of arrears idenced by the receipts of dues that may be placed on record copies whereof were duly supplied the Returning Officer present throughout in these proceedings before the Tribunal in response to tice dated 05.1.2024.
5. Learned Legal Advisor FBR, however, under instructions from the departmental representative bmitted that by virtue of order dated 23.8.2023 of the Commissioner (Appeals-VII) Inland Revenue, hore the liability of Rs.466,250/- was confirmed against the appellant which pertains to tax period 7.2016 to 30.6.2017 and had been outstanding for more than six months against the appellant that mained unpaid, therefore, would count as default. Learned counsel for the appellant expressed rprise at the passing of the said order by taking the stance that he was not aware that such an der has been made and also attempted to submit that in any case stay application had been filed hich was pending. The stay application which was filed in the proceeding before the Commissioner ppeals-VII) Inland Revenue, Lahore obviously could only cover the period till the adjudication by the id officer which resulted in affirmation of liability vide order dated 23.8.2023 as such was rendered ructuous and could not be of any use to appellant.
6. Perusal of the impugned order however shows that an amount of Rs.6,688,750/- is mentioned and e amount of Rs.466,250/- does not find mention in the order of the Returning Officer. This amount, such, appears to have been sprung as a surprise on the appellant. Yesterday, the appellant's arned counsel at the very moment of being confronted with the information that such an amount as outstanding submitted that the appellant is a law abiding citizen and that such a default may t result in recording of any attitude of contumacious or willful default. He submitted that without ejudice to the rights of the appellant to avail any statutory remedy that may be available under the pplicable law to the appellant, if some indulgence is shown by this Tribunal, in the interest of justice d fairness, since inalienable fundamental rights of the appellant under Article 17(2) of the Islamic public of Pakistan, 1973 are involved; he shall duly deposit the amount stated to be reflected in the cord of the FBR as outstanding against him under protest. The statement on the part of the ppellant was deemed to be reasonable and an opportunity to pay off the outstanding liability till the sumption of the Court qua hearing of the appeal on the next date was observed.
7. When the case is called today at the appointed hour learned counsel for the appellant has entered s statement that the liability has been duly paid off subject to all just and legal exceptions. This ctum has been affirmed by the learned Legal Advisor FBR who submits that computerized payment ceipts for the said amount have been duly issued and, as such, the default stands cured. At this oint learned counsel for the FBR has also entered the stance that the amount subject-matter of mand order shall remain subject to final adjudication in the course of exercise of statutory authority thin the hierarchy of jurisdiction in accordance with law and that the expression of non-existence of y present liability shall be limited for the purposes of decision of this appeal by the Tribunal. This ay be taken to be so as the liabilities of FBR are not direct subject-matter of these proceedings as ch the rights of the both sides are safeguarded to have the underlying controversy thrashed out by ncerned statutory fora in accordance with law.
8. As two instances of default which informed the decision of the Returning Officer resulting in ection of the nomination papers have been adequately addressed, the order of the Returning ficer loses efficacy and is therefore set aside. In consequence the nomination papers of the ppellant stand accepted. The Returning Officer is directed to reflect the name of the appellant in the vised list of validly nominated candidates for the said constituency in discharge of the mandate of ction 64(3) of the Elections Act, 2017.
9. Appeal accepted.