"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns:st1=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2003J1011_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eC\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003co:SmartTagType namespaceuri=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags\"\r\n name=\"country-region\"/\u003e\r\n\u003co:SmartTagType namespaceuri=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags\"\r\n name=\"date\"/\u003e\r\n\u003co:SmartTagType namespaceuri=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags\"\r\n name=\"City\"/\u003e\r\n\u003co:SmartTagType namespaceuri=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags\"\r\n name=\"place\"/\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eJamrabi\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eJamrabi\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2006-06-23T07:03:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2006-06-23T07:03:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e1706\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e9727\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier Technologies (Pvt) Ltd\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e81\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e22\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e11411\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:BreakWrappedTables/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SnapToGridInCell/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:WrapTextWithPunct/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseAsianBreakRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:DontGrowAutofit/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if !mso]\u003e\u003cobject\r\n classid=\"clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D\" id=ieooui\u003e\u003c/object\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\nst1\\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eC.B.R\u0027S. DISTRUST\r\nTOWARDS ALL\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eDr. Ikramul Haq,\r\nAdvocate, \u003cst1:place w:st=\"on\"\u003e\u003cst1:City w:st=\"on\"\u003eLahore\u003c/st1:City\u003e\u003c/st1:place\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eCentral Board of Revenue\r\n(C.B.R.), the apex body responsible for tax collection and administration at\r\nfederal level, is showing mistrust, suspicion and dissatisfaction towards all:\r\ntaxpayers, assessing officers, tax professionals, Courts, Federal \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.3pt\u0027\u003eTax \u003c/span\u003eOmbudsman and now even the Federal\r\nSecretary of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eTax bureaucrats sitting in C.B.R.\r\nare suffering from syndrome of self-righteousness. They believe whatever they\r\ndo is perfectly just and according to law and all taxpayers in connivance with\r\nAssessing Officers and tax professionals are making their policies fail. They\r\nare highly critical of recent bold, well-founded and remarkable rulings of\r\nFederal Tax Ombudsman [of course in private meetings while appreciating his\r\nrole publically] that have utterly exposed their maladministration and\r\nhighhandedness. Their disrespect toward higher Courts is well\u0026#8209;documented\r\nas on more than one occasions, the Courts have passed strictures against the\r\nC.B.R. and tax officials for flouting their decisions and showing no respect\r\nfor due process of law. Recently in a most undesirable manner, the C.B.R. has\r\nexpressed its dissatisfaction with certain decisions taken by the Federal Law\r\nSecretary [Dawn, \u003cst1:date Month=\"11\" Day=\"15\" Year=\"2002\" w:st=\"on\"\u003e15th\r\n November, 2002\u003c/st1:date\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAccording to the report, the\r\nC.B.R. has told the Government in certain disputed tax issues with\r\nGovernment-owned corporations unfavourable rulings given by the Law Secretary\r\nare not acceptable to it. The story published in the English newspaper reveals:\r\n\u0026quot;the Government has asked the Attorney-General of \u003cst1:place w:st=\"on\"\u003e\u003cst1:country-region\r\n w:st=\"on\"\u003ePakistan\u003c/st1:country-region\u003e\u003c/st1:place\u003e to settle all outstanding\r\ntax disputes \u0027involving billions of rupees between Government organizations and\r\nthe Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.)\u0026quot;. The Government has made it clear\r\nthat the decision and advice given by the Attorney General would be binding on\r\nboth sides. The Income-tax Authorities had been pursuing tax liability cases\r\nagainst the Government owned organizations like TCP, Karachi Shipyard and\r\nEngineering Works (KS\u0026amp;EW), Karachi Dock Labour Board; Federal Bank for\r\nCooperatives and Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan for the last so many\r\nyears. Whenever assessment starts and tax demands are raised the Government\r\nowned organizations dispute the assessment. When the income tax department\r\npursues recovery of tax, these organizations start agitating the matter through\r\ntheir respective ministries.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;However,\r\nfor early resolution of tax disputes the Government in the year 1998 directed\r\nall the organizations through their ministries to withdraw all Court cases\r\nagainst the C.B.R. and tax departments. The government objective was to settle\r\nsuch disputes outside the Courts through inter-ministerial consultation. And\r\nthose unresolved matters of such cases were referred to the Ministry of Law,\r\nJustice and Human Rights. But to utter dismay of the C.B.R. in most cases, the\r\nLaw Secretary gave decision against the Income-tax Department on points of law\r\nand in some of the decisions it contravened the verdict of the superior Courts\r\non similar issues\u0026quot;, the report said.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe report is certainly spoon-fed\r\nby the C.B.R. as its `utter dismay\u0026quot; on orders passed by Law Secretary is a\r\nsubjective conclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe report has been published\r\nwithout knowing and investigating the actual legal position involved and\r\nwithout appreciating the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The\r\nFederal Law Secretary, a Judge of High Court, has served the Government as\r\nDeputy Attorney-General for a long time before being elevated as Judge of High\r\nCourt. He has been arguing tax cases on behalf of the C.B.R. in a most\r\nimpressive manner (though C.B.R. now is totally dissatisfied with his\r\nperformance as unfavourable ruling have been pronounced against it) and has\r\nknowledge, experience and legal acumen to adjudicate intricate tax issues.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eC.B.R., according to the\r\nnewspapers\u0027 report, after showing its \u0026quot;utter dismay\u0026quot; with the\r\ndecisions of the Federal Law Secretary approached the Federal Government\r\n\u0026quot;for setting aside the decision of secretary law because apart from\r\ncausing loss in revenue his decisions were also having a negative impact on\r\nnon-public cases\u0026quot;. After taking stock of the situation the Cabinet decided\r\nto \u0027refer all those cases which were decided by law secretary but are not\r\nacceptable to the C.B.R. to the Attorney-General of \u003cst1:place w:st=\"on\"\u003e\u003cst1:country-region\r\n w:st=\"on\"\u003ePakistan\u003c/st1:country-region\u003e\u003c/st1:place\u003e for his advice and\r\ndecision. The cause of dispute between tax authorities and Government owned\r\norganization, besides many other points, is mainly over the \u0026quot;subsidy\u0026quot;\r\ngiven by the Government to these organizations to salvage them from financial\r\ncrisis. The Income-tax Department treats such a subsidy given by the Government\r\nto these organizations on suffering losses as their income which is taxable but\r\nGovernment owned organizations are disputing the same and they say\r\n\u0026quot;subsidy\u0026quot; is not a revenue receipt but a contribution by the\r\nGovernment towards their capital.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe C.B.R. itself accepted the\r\narbitration of Federal Law Secretary and now it is refusing to accept the\r\ndecision of the arbitrator. It is surely a bizarre situation. It is totally\r\nunprecedented in any civilized society. It shows how much respect the C.B.R.\r\nhas for due process of law. The worthy Law Secretary as a Judge of Lahore High\r\nCourt passed a historic order in which he struck down the selection of cases by\r\nthe C.B.R. for total audit on parametric basis rather than on random basis as\r\npromised in the Self-Assessment Scheme. The highhandedness of the C.B.R. and\r\nits insistence to be allowed to proceed with illegal process was taken due note\r\nof by the Honourable Judge in a most appropriate manner by passing the\r\nfollowing observations in Messrs Akhlaque Cloth House Faisalabad v. Assistant\r\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12, Faisalabad Zone, Faisalabad and three\r\nothers 2001 PTD 3121:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;..:Admittedly\r\nrespondent while promulgating self-assessment scheme for the year 2000-2001\r\nmade a clear representation that cases for selection of audit would be made\r\nthrough random computer ballot. This was the promise given out by the Government\r\nto the taxpayer and the citizens. It has a binding effect in law and\r\njurisprudence. It is commended by the God Al-Mighty through the passages\r\ncontained in Qur\u0027an-e-Hakeem in Surah Baqara, Surah Al Maida \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eand \u003c/span\u003eSurah Bani Israel that the \u0027promises\r\nmade to each other should be adhered to. This solemn transcendental principle\r\nis to be followed and is not merely decorative. The promise becomes more\r\nimperative when it is given out by the Government. Therefore, such promise has\r\na binding force and cannot be allowed to be breeched more so by the hierarchy\r\nof respondent No. 4. The device or parametric computer balloting, therefore,\r\nhas no place in the self-assessment scheme under consideration and it is alien\r\nto the scheme. It, therefore, follows that the parametric computer balloting is\r\ncontrary to the law under the said scheme and has to be declared as such.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn another case the learned Judge\r\nmade similar remarks when the C.B:R. in violation of its own scheme selected a\r\ncase for total audit though a promise of immunity from such selection was\r\ngiven. While deciding the petition in Millat Bottle Store Faisalabad v. C.B.R. and\r\nothers (1998) 78 Tax 173 (HC Lah.) it was observed:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;...The\r\ntheory of vested right as well as promissory estoppel has been applied by the\r\nCourts of this country since long. It is unnecessary to burden this judgment by\r\nmention of all cases as reference to Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. etc. v\r\nFederation of. \u003cst1:place w:st=\"on\"\u003e\u003cst1:country-region w:st=\"on\"\u003ePakistan\u003c/st1:country-region\u003e\u003c/st1:place\u003e\r\nand others 1992 SCMR 1652 and Al-Samrez Enterprises v. The Federation of\r\nPakistan and others 1966 SCMR 1917 would suffice.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAnother aspect\r\nof the matter which is to be noted is that under Islamic dispensation of\r\njustice, the parties including State should be bound down to the terms of the\r\ncontract arrived at between them and they must be made to adhere to their\r\npromises. In view of Article 2A of the Constitution and promulgation of Shariat\r\n(Application) Ordinance, 1990, Islamic principles of interpretation or statutes\r\nare to be kept in view by the Court. It follows, therefore, that the\r\nrespondents cannot be wriggled out of the clear promises which they made while\r\npromulgating self\u0026#8209;assessment scheme for the year 1993-94.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe issue in conflict between\r\nC.B.R. and Government owned organisations is taxation of grant-in-aid or\r\nsubsidy given to them by the State to meet their losses or other capital investment\r\nneeds. It is a tragic situation that two wings of the Government are\r\nquarrelling over something which is totally futile. It is just a matter of\r\ntaking out money from one pocket of the Government (Government organistaions)\r\nand putting into another (C.B.R.). The purpose is obviously to show higher\r\ncollection figures to impress the IMF by fleecing government bodies and then\r\ngiving the same back to them in the form of subsidies. This is the whole drama\r\nthat the Government is engaged in keeping the public in the dark and trying to\r\nhoodwink the international donors.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAs regards taxation of\r\ngrant-in-aid or any similar receipt, it cannot be treated as income of a person\r\nby any established principles of law. There is \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003eno \u003c/span\u003edearth of case law on this point that such amounts are capital\r\nreceipts 2001 PTD 2282, 1987 PTD 482, 1991 PTD 991 and 2000 PTD 823. Although\r\nfrom the Press report, the exact nature of the subsidy is not clear (as in some\r\ncases it can be treated as revenue receipt) but it appears that the C.B.R. has\r\na weaker case as compared to Government owned corporations. Obviously the\r\nC.B.R. is irked by revenue implication of the decision of the Federal Law\r\nSecretary and is not at all interested in understanding with an open mind the\r\nlegal point involved. In recent years it has become easier for the C.B.R. to\r\nmilk the Government owned corporations, banks and other financial institutions,\r\nwhich are easy prey for undue tax collections, rather than going for the\r\ntougher ones who are habitual, hard-core tax evaders having strong political\r\nclout. C.B.R\u0027s. stalwarts run from pillar to post to secure lucrative positions\r\nand have, therefore, neither will nor capacity to net these tax dodgers.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe problem of the C.B.R., it\r\nseems is unfavourable decisions and not the office of Law Secretary. It has\r\nbecome a regular practice on the part of C.B.R. that it rejects anything that\r\nis unfavourable. It has become allergic to criticism. It wants that everybody\r\nshould unconditionally endorse all its decisions and policies no matter how\r\nillogical, harsh and unreasonable they may be. The C.B.R. wants that nobody\r\nshould come in its way, and a free hand should be given to it to collect taxes\r\nby hook or by crook. This attitude of highhandedness on the part of C.B.R. has\r\ndiscredited the entire tax system where no one is ready to pay taxes as a\r\nmatter of duty.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe image of C.B.R. that has\r\nemerged over the time is that of a ruthless tax collecting machinery having \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eno \u003c/span\u003eregard for taxpayers\u0027 rights. One wonders\r\nwhat will happen if the learned Attorney-General also gives a decision in\r\nfavour of the Government owned corporations. Perhaps then the C.B.R. will write\r\nto IMF to intervene, as the Pakistan Government has become an impediment in its\r\nway for collection of taxes! Or it may lodge a complaint with George W. Bush\r\nagainst its own people as its attitude appears more loyal to its foreign\r\nmasters than Pakistani taxpayers from whose money its salary is derived.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"