ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court Monday adjourned the hearing of Justice QaziFaez Isa’s petition challenging the presidential reference filed againsthim over alleged non-disclosure of assets in his wealth statement tillTuesday.
A ten-member larger bench of the court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandialand comprising Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JusticeFaisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah,Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridiand Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed heard the case regarding proceedingsof the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.
The reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa alleges that he acquiredthree properties in London on lease in the name of his wife and childrenbetween 2011 and 2015, but did not disclose them in wealth returns.
During the course of proceedings, Advocate Babar Sattar counsel for JusticeQazi Faez Isa said that he wanted to read Shabar Zaidi’s article. Articleis very important because he (Shabbar Zaidi) now Chairman Federal Boars ofRevenue (FBR), he added.
He said that wealth statement has nothing to do with wealth. He said thatthere was no link between wealth statement and return income.
He said that Income Tax 2001 Ordinance was neither related to income norassets.Babar Sattar said that there has always been ambiguity in the wealthstatement. Wealth statements did not exclude assets, he added.
Justice Faisal Arab said that wealth statements could be submitted at anytime. Wealth was related to income, he added.
He said that there was no wealth without income. If there was income thenthere would be wealth, he added.
Justice Faisal Arab said that only the government’s wealth comes fromrevenue.He asked what to do if someone had submitted a wealth statement but did notspecify the full income.
Babar Sattar said that there were also some conditions in which the wealthstatement did not accumulate. All details were to be given at the timestated in the notice, he added.
He said that the citizen had to give details of his and his family’s wealth.Justice Munib Akhtar said that wealth statements were required to beprovided in accordance with the terms of the FBR.
He said that the law says, over and above and asked did this not mean thata citizen had to disclose his self-sufficient wife children to the WealthStatement? He said that he thought that’s the interpretation.
Babar Sattar said that no it was not so ad in the history of FBR, there wasno such thing as self-sufficient wife, children giving information.
Justice Munib Akhtar said even if this is not the case in history,information should be shared. If FBR sought details then he should informthat they were self sufficient, he added.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that he had come to understand that it wasimportant for provisions of details regarding self-sufficient spouses andchildren. The Income Tax Commissioner could ask for information if needed,he added.
Babar Sattar said that if the Commissioner receives information by anymeans, the Commissioners could ask for more information.
He said that only the given form has to be completed. He said that no onecan change the form.
He said that he gave the information according to what he received from theform.Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that the court was not sitting here to lookat the Wealth Statement form.
He asked the counsel to answer allegations and not to indulge in minordetails. He asked the counsel what was the point of his argument?
He asked the basic question is where did this money come from.
Read Top Stories
Babar Sattar said that this was not a basic question that he was saying wasa basic question. He said that his main point was that the Wealth Statementonly states his income.
He said that the terms of the Wealth Statement must meet the samerequirements.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that here the court did not have the issue ofthe Wealth Statement.
Babar Sattar said that the whole matter was on the Wealth Statement ofJustice Qazi Faez Isa.
Justice Maqbool Baqar asked the counsel that his client had not beendisclosed his children’s assets. Under the law, he (Justice Qazi Faez Isa)was not obligated to disclose the assets, he added.
Justice Yahya Afridi asked how can he exposed assets that he did not own.
Justice Faisal Arab said that the issue was not the Wealth Statement, butthe issue was related to abroad assets.
He asked the counsel to respond to allegations based on assumptions. It wasalleged that the assets were made through money laundering, he added.
Babar Sattar asked what material did the president have to accuse of hisclient? Allegations were made without evidence, he added.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel whether his client received anynotice.Babar Sattar responded that no notice was sent at all. He said thatpreviously, it was not a condition to show off property and assets abroadand after amendment this responsibility was included.
He said that if a person makes a false statement in the Wealth Statement,he is fined. But if no one discloses the assets of his or her spouse’schildren, there is no penalty, he added.
He said that this was what Shuber Zaidi wrote in his article.
He said that the Commissioner could issue notice again after reviewing theproperty.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked if the property is detected then notice isissued.
Babar Sattar said that yes separately showcause notices were issued. Aseparate show cause notice is issued if any misrepresentation is proved, headded.
Justice Muzahir Alam said that there was a restriction for the commissionerfor reassessment of assets but there was no restriction for imposition ofpenalties.
He said that a notice must be issued by the Commissioner for thereassessment of the assets but no notice was issued to Justice Faez Isa.
