0
KARACHI, Oct 12: A division bench of the Sindh High Court has admitted to regular hearing a bank’s petition against the sales tax collectorate’s notices for details about 396 accounts maintained by it and suspended the impugned notices till the next date, which is to be fixed by SHC office.
A sales tax assistant collector issued notices to a commercial bank to obtain detailed information about 396 of its account-holders, including their addresses and national identity card numbers. The notices, sent by the assistant collector last month under Section 37 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly sought the amounts and dates of the transfer certificates encashed by the account-holders.
The bank submitted in its petition that it was obliged by a number of general legal provisions and the banking laws and practices to keep the transactions of its account-holders confidential. It could not divulge the requisite details in view of the bar contained in the Banking Companies Ordinance, the State Bank of Pakistan Act, the Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code.
Admitting the petition earlier this week, the bench comprising Justices S. Ahmed Sarwana and M. Mujibullah Siddiqui directed that notices be issued to the respondents. The operation of the impugned notices was stayed till the next date. The sales tax authorities would, however, be free to act under the code of criminal procedure. The matter would be heard with another petition agitating identical questions.
ABSCONDERS’ APPEAL: A Sindh High Court division bench on Friday held an appeal by two absconders as not maintainable but referred it to the chief justice for consideration by a larger bench in view of a conflicting judgment rendered by another division bench earlier.
The appeal was filed by a lawyer engaged by absconders Jamil Ahmad and Athar Usmani to defend them in their absence before an anti-terrorism court. Together with six others, they were charged with kidnapping sub-divisional officer Jameel Baloch of the Karachi Development Authority in May 2001 on a motorcycle belonging to the complainant, sub-engineer Shaikh Abdullah.
They were convicted ‘in absentia’ under the Anti-Terrorist Act in November 2001 and jailed for three years and fined Rs10,000 each. Compensation amounting to Rs15,000 each was also to be paid by them to the victim. Their plea for transfer of their case to a sessions court was earlier dismissed by the ATC.
They did not surrender even after the pronouncement of the judgment against them. The ATA allows absconders to appear before the trial court within 60 days of their conviction or subsequently to explain their absence. If the absence is not wilful, a retrial is held in the presence of the absconding accused.
Jamil and Athar did not face the trial despite a proclamation issued by the ATC. Their counsel, S.M. Iqbal, however, filed an appeal against their conviction in the high court three days after the ATC judgment, saying that appellate proceedings were a continuation of the trial and he was competent to act as the appellants’ counsel.
Contesting the appeal, Assistant Advocate-General Habib Ahmed submitted before a division bench comprising Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Rehmat Hussain Jaferi that the appellants should first surrender so that the police could obtain their remand and record their statements, if any. They had also not exhausted their remedy before the trial court by appearing before it and seeking a retrial. The bench observed that an appeal would be illusory in the circumstances. Declaring it as not maintainable, it, however, referred the case to the chief justice in view of a previous conflicting judgment.
