ISLAMABAD: The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has directed the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to facilitate the delivery of a 2014 Daihatsu Mira, Chassis No. LA300S-1277173, to a complainant, the successful bidder, following the completion of legal procedures.
This decision was issued after a complaint was lodged against the Director of Intelligence & Investigation-Customs, Quetta, alleging unwarranted delays in both vehicle delivery and issuance of an auction certificate. The complainant won the Daihatsu Mira during an auction held by the Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation, FBR’s Regional Office in Quetta, with an approved bid of Rs.10,55,000. This auction, facilitated by government-authorized auctioneer Business Line Indicators, required him to pay 25% of the bid (Rs.1,00,000) immediately and the remaining 75% (Rs.9,55,000) thereafter. The complainant asserts he made both payments as per requirements, yet the Directorate failed to issue the auction certificate or assist with registration, citing various pretexts for the delay. He argued that the Directorate’s actions were not only illegal but an abuse of power under the “How it is Where it is” rule, which mandates auctioned items to be delivered in their current state.
The Directorate’s response indicated procedural concerns. They acknowledged the complainant as the highest bidder but stated he failed to follow Customs Rules, specifically Rule 67, by not depositing the required 25% earnest money immediately.
They added that, although he completed the payment, he requested an extension to deposit the final amount, which the Directorate rejected for lack of specific justification. The Directorate argued that this delay warranted forfeiture of the earnest money under Rule 69, which mandates forfeiture if the full amount isn’t paid within the stipulated time or extended period. According to them, the Rs. 9,55,000 paid was due for a refund, although the complainant hadn’t yet claimed it. They recommended that the complaint be dismissed as meritless.
In its analysis, the FTO stressed that the successful bidder had met their financial commitments by paying both the earnest money and the full bid amount. Importantly, the rules provide flexibility in such cases, with Rule 68 allowing for a 15-day payment deadline extension and Section 224 enabling the FBR to grant relief in hardship situations. Given these provisions and the complainant’s prompt payment, the FTO recommended condoning the delay.
In its ruling, the FTO ordered the condonation of the payment delay under Section 224 of the Customs Act, 1969. The relevant Director was instructed to deliver the vehicle to Niamatullah upon fulfilment of all necessary legal and procedural requirements. To ensure timely resolution, the FBR was given 45 days to implement these recommendations and report compliance, thereby closing the case without further undue delay.
Court asked appellants to satisfy it on next hearing that how decision of single bench was not right
Petitioner’s lawyer informed court that parliament had passed 26th Constitutional Amendment
CM urged people to choose between resisting oppression and embracing freedom or continuing under shackles of slavery
Committee emphasised need for effective legislation to safeguard rights of parliamentarians
Muzammil Aslam highlighted need for 5,000 watersheds in KP, requiring an investment of Rs 115 billion
Justice Shahzad observed that with support of appellant, 85% power theft was witnessed in his locality
