Copyright brecorder
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) held that an executive authority cannot override, alter or limit a policy decision taken by Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) of the Cabinet. The court passed this order in an appeal of Commissioner Inland Revenue (CIR) challenging the decision of a single bench of the LHC declaring the sub-clause (d) of an impugned Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) inserted by the Federal Board of Revenue (Board) which declares, “The benefit of this notification shall not be admissible in respect of exports by land routes to Afghanistan and central Asian Republics”. The court observed that once the ECC grants a fiscal incentive across the board to encourage sugar exports, the Board does not possess the jurisdiction to unilaterally curtail or modify the said benefit by inserting any clause in a SRO. SC rejects Commissioner IR’s plea against LHC order The court observed that although the impugned SRO was issued by revenue division of the Board, pursuant to the ECC’s decision, the insertion of sub-clause (d) therein was carried out independently by the revenue division of the Board, without any express direction or approval of the ECC. The court said, the inserted clause in a SRO was inconsistent with the spirit and objective of the ECC’s policy decision to enhance exports. The court also commenting on authority of the Board to proceed against any court verdict observed that according to the 1973 Rules of Business of the Federal Government, the authority to institute and defend any legal proceedings relating to the fiscal, administrative, or policy functions of the revenue division lies with the federal government, through the Finance Ministry. The court; therefore, said that the CIR, being a field formation officer, lacks the statutory competence and locus standi to challenge the judgment of the single judge, particularly where the matter concerns the vires of an SRO issued under the authority of the Board’s revenue division. The court also observed that no express authorization was granted to the CIR to challenge the judgment passed by the single judge, nor was any sanction obtained from the competent authority for filing of the instant appeal. To allow a subordinate officer to maintain an appeal in such circumstances would, in effect, permit a person without lawful authority to override or question the considered silence of the competent policy organ of the State, the court added. The court also held that such action would not only offend the doctrine of locus standi but also undermine the administrative discipline envisaged under the Rules of Business, 1973. The court noted that neither the Federal Government nor the concerned ministry, being the competent authorities under the law has chosen to challenge the judgment of the ingle judge. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
