Peshawar High Court (PHC) has ruled that a convicted advocate, who was a practicing lawyer, was eligible to be appointed as Chairman Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, (ATIR).

This has been stated by the PHC in a judgement (WP2949-P of 2019) on the appointment of existing Chairman Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, (ATIR).

The whole issue involves whether a convicted advocate is eligible to be appointed as Chairman Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, (ATIR) or not.

PHC order further held that at the occasion of appointment, he was a practicing lawyer and was eligible to be appointed, therefore, the appointment of the respondent suffers from no legal flaw. Therefore, the petition being meritless is dismissed accordingly, PHC order added.

It is reliably learnt that petition was moved by a Peshawar based citizen through Hazara Bar member for removal of Chairman ATIR wherein a Division Bench of PHC has dismissed the petition.

PHC order states "In essence, he being practicing lawyer, had been appointed as Chairman Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Pakistan vide notification dated 07.05.2018 while his appointment has challenged by the petitioner on the sole ground that respondent No. 1 was a convict person and a convict could not be appointed on the post under challenge.

PHC order further states "No doubt, the respondent No. 1 was convicted by a Magistrate on 26.7.1980 but his conviction was converted to probation under the Probation Ordinance. He was granted license by the Bar Council to practise as an Advocate under Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973.

On one hand, conviction of respondent could not be counted in view of section 11 of the Probation Ordinance while on other hand he was fully qualified and eligible to be appointed as Chairman Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue in accordance with eligibility there under section (3) of section 130 of the Income Tax Ordinance which read as: "(3) A person may be appointed as a judicial member of the Appellate Tribunal if the person- (ii) is or has been an advocate of a High Court and is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court."

As on the occasion of appointment, respondent No. 1 was a practicing lawyer and was eligible to be appointed, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner suffers from no any legal flaw. Therefore, this petition being merit less is dismissed accordingly, PHC ordered.