Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 5493 2024 SLD 5493 2024 MLD 1259
Sindh High Court
C.Ps., Nos. D-88 and D-89 of 2024, decided on 9th January, 2024.
Before Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ
Ali Tahir, along with Muhammad Hashim Sairai for Petitioner (in both Petitions). Abdul Rahim Qureshi, Returning Officer, NA-231 (Malir-III), is present in Court (in C.P. No. D-88/2024]. Qazi Ayazuddin Qureshi, Assistant Attorney General, along with Riaz Ahmed, Director (Law), ECP and Sarmad Sarwar, Assistant Director (Law), ECP, Karachi
Respondents 2 - 3. [In both Petitions). Nemo for
Respondent No. 4. Date of hearing: 9th January, 2024.

MANSOOR ALI---Petitioner

VERSUS

DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICERS N-A 231 and N-A 230 and others --Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 63(1)(o)

Law: Elections Act, 2017

Section: 62 (10)

Constitution of Pakistan ------Art. 63(1)(o)---Elections Act ( XXXIII of 2017 ), S. 62 (10) --- Rejection of candidate's nomination papers ---Tax liability of candidate --- Liability existing "at the time of filing of nomination papers"---Scope---Knowledge of tax liability--Subsection (10) of S.62 of the Elections Act, 2017, benefit of---Returning Officer rejected the candidate's nomination papers on the ground that as per a letter received from the concerned officer, a sum of Rs. 672,500/- was outstanding against him as income tax--- Contention of the petitioner was that though no such liability was outstanding, nonetheless he paid the amount on the next day followed by issuance of No Demand Certificate by Federal Board of Revenue to him which was then placed before the learned Election Tribunal with his appeals-- However, the Election Tribunal , relying on Art. 63(1)(o) of the Constitution held that since such liability existed "at the time of filing of nomination papers", the subsequent payment could not rescue the petitioner, and also the benefit of subsection (10) of S.62 of the Elections Act, 2017, was not given to the petitioner by observing that he could not say that he did not have knowledge of his tax liability---Letter in-question on which the Returning Officers had placed reliance, suggested that income tax liability of the petitioner for tax year-2022, which amount to Rs. 769,235/- was not paid, whereas the income tax return for that tax year placed on the record determined the tax payable as Rs. 73,095/-, and he (petitioner) had placed on record the paid challan of said amount--- Therefore, it appeared that the letter-in-question might not be correct--- In such circumstances, even the material relied upon by the Returning Officer for rejecting the Petitioner's nomination forms, was hardly sufficient to disenfranchise him--Thus, it could also not be said that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed his tax liability--- Consequently, the benefit of subsection (10) of S.62 of the Elections Act, 2017, should have been extended to the petitioner when he had in any case cleared the alleged tax liability before the last date of scrutiny of nomination…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492