Abdul Rauf Nasir (Petitioner) VS NAB and Ors (Respondent)

?oQ

IN THE HI GH COURT OF SINDH, I{ARACHI

Before:- Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, C.J.

Mr. Justice Mohammed Karim I{han Agha, J Petition iVo. a nd name o etitioner alo with counsel, 1. C.P. No.D-6262 of 2O1Z Abdut Wahid V Nationat +:c:yltabitity Bureau (NAB) through Chairman & others. Abdul Wahid Father of Muham*.JArf.l (petitioner), through Mr. Khalid Javed Khan, Advocate.

2.C.P. No. D-2717 of 2OI7 Zubair Farid Tufail & others V National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and others. Zubair Farid Tulail s/o. Late Muhammad Tufail (petitioner) Through Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, Advocate.

3.C.P. No. D-7975 of 2OtT Kashif Naseer V National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman & others. Kashif Naseer son of Naseeruddin (petitioner) through Ms. Fouzia Rasheed. Advocate.

4.C.P. No. D-8048 of 2OtZ Abdul Rauf Nasir V National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman & others. Abdul Rauf Nasir son of Abdui Majid Nasir (petitioner) Through Mr. Naveed Ba_luch, Advocate.

5.C.P. No. D-6301 of 2Ot7 Majid Ali V National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman & others. Majid Ali son of Wajid Ali (petitioner) Through Mr. Shahab Sarki, Advocate.

6.C.P. No. D-7441 of 2017 Anees V National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman & others, Anees son of Zakria (petitioner) Through Mr. Nisar Ahmed Tarar, Advocate.

Counsel for the R espondents,

Mr. Yasir Siddique, Special Prosecutor, NAB Dates of Hearing: 08.02.2018 and 13.02.2078 Date of Order 23.O2.2018

ORDER

Mohammed Karim Khan As ha, J: By this comrron order we propose to dispose of the above petitions filed by the above mentioned petitioners. Some of the petitioners have applied l-z-'

7lo

for post arrest bail whilst other petitioners have applied for the confirmation of their pre arrest bail which was granted to them earlier through various orders of this court.

2.The 'brief facts of the case are that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) received. a source report against proprietors of different registered companies u,ho in connivance with officials of the Inland Revenue service (IRS) had received illegal refunds of sales tax against fake/flying invoices by misusing SRO No.549 (1) 2OO8 dated June 11th 2O0B and SRO No.6B (I)l2OO9 dated 27-Ot-2OOg.

3.After carrying out an inquiry which was later converted into an investigation the NAB collected sufficient ntaterial, against Anfal proprieror of M/S Ai Falah Impex (Impex) which was.aided and abetted by other companies (who provided fake and flying invoices to Impex) who in connivance with named IRS officers, established that the IRS officiais by misusing their authority/failing to exercise their authority had in connivance r.vith Impex which was aided and abetted by other companies illegally benefited Impex by enabling Impex to obtain illegal sales tax refunds through the use of fake and or flying invoices which caused a loss of tens of millions of rupees to the national exchequer and justified the filing of a reference against Impex, aider and abettor companies and IRS officials on account of corruption and corrupt practices under S.9 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 (NAO) and accordingly reference No.25l2OL7 State v Anfal and others was filed before the accountability court in Karachi against the petitioners and other co-accuseci on 27- 10-20l7.According to the reference the total loss caused to the national exchequer through the iliegal actions of the accused in the reference amounted to RS L2O.l million.

4.Through the reference as per para 39 which is set out below it was established that;

1Z

2tl

"39. That in view of the above, it has been established that M/s. Al-Falah Impex rvas non-existent manufacturing unit. It r,vas shown registered in the names of accused No.1 (Anfal) just to obtain illegal Sales Tax Refund. Accused Tehsin Salim (deceased), the then Inspector IRS issued F.alse Verification lieport of the non-existing unit of M/s. Ai-Faiah Impex wt ich led to issuance of illegal Sales Tax Refund. Accused. Io.7, Faizan (one of Anfal,s brothers) one of the beneficiary of the illegal Sales Tax Refund. Accused No.l & 2 (Anfal and his brother Muhammad Umair) in connivance r,vith accused No.g to 2I (prgprietorships/companies) managed fake / flying invoices and other fake / bogus documents uii"g accounts of accused No.22 to 25 which were forwarded, processed and sanctioned by accused No.3 to 6 (IRS officials) which resulted in causing loss of Rs.94.6 Million to National Exchequer and obtained illegal benefits amounting to Rs.25.5 Million besides this loss. Also accused No.3 obtained illegal gratilication against sanction of illegal sales tax refund and accused No.26 rvas benamidar of accused No.3. Hence accused No.1 to 26 in connivance u,ith each other caused loss of Rs.120.1 Million, to the national exchequer along with consequential gain derived by them in this process, Thus they have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under Section 9(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 punishable under Section 10 of the Ordinance and Scheduie thereto".

5.In essence the reference divides into three categories of accused. Firstly the main beneficiary (Impex), secondly the government officials (IRS/FBR) and thirdly those companies who aided and abetted Impex through providing fake and/or flying invoices in return for a commission on the illegal fake and/ or flying sales tax invoices which they gave to Impex which enabled Impex to make the illegal sales tax refund claims.

The case of Impex

6..Turning to the case of petitioner Anfal proprietor of M/S A1 Falah Impex. He is the alleged main beneficiary of illegal sales tax refunds to the tune of Rs.94.567 Million and the main accused, a-long r,r,'ith his brother accused No.2 (Muhammad Umair who has absconded) in the reference ry

+tL

(which in essence involves a sales tax scam perpetuated by Impex, other companies (aiders and abettors) who provided Impex with fake and/or flying invoices in return for commissions and IRS officers which enabled Impex to craim massive illegal sales tax refunds) and very specific allegations have been made against him in the reference in the following { terms at Para's 12,13 and 1 1:

"72. That the investigation revealed that the accused No.1, Anfal has got registered non-existing manufacturing unit in FBR ; the basis of fak; documents. He also opened bank accounts to obtain sales tax refund for his so-called manufacturing unit. He submitted bogus tenancy agreement and fraudulently declared address of location rn,hich was never.possessed by him on rental owner basis. Being proprietor of M/s. Al-Falah Impex,/ he availed illegj sales tax refund on fake I iying invoices on Ur. manufacturing of zero rated suppliJs causing loss to national exchequer to the tune-of Rs.94.562 Million.

13.That, the investigation revealed. that the accused No.2 Muhammad Umair is brother of accused No.1. He used to an'ange flying invoices from different suppliers and managed layering and rotation of funds for disposal of illegal refund amount as well as for deceiving FBR authorities regarding monitoring of compliance of Section 73 of Sales Tax Act- 1990.

1 1. That, the investigation revealed that 1 M/s. M/s. Al-Falah Impex (STRN:

1704999820573) was registered as manufacturer of Plastic Goods in the narne of accused No.l Anfal s/o. Abdul Wahid u,hich never existed. Fake agreements and bogus documents were used to reflect offices of firm at different locations;

11 No plastic manufacturing was carried out which is evident from the fact that neither electricity consumption was highlighted nor any power generating equipment u.as installed at so-called premises of Al-Falah Impex (CI-64, Sector 12, North Karachi Industrial Area.)

iii. Flying invoices of different supplier rvere used for input tax against u,,hich illegai refund was claimed which were arranged by accused no.2 Muhammad Umair who is also brother of accused no.r,

2ts

1V Statement of Approver Muhamrnad Zaheer also recorded which stated that flying invoices of ' PMC were issued at the rate of Rs.SO-1OO which he supplied to accused no.1 and 2. V 06 accused who issued invoices of 7 firms, on the basis of which Rs.14.547 Mitlion were obtained as illegal sal.es tax refund have accepted their guilt of issuing / selling flying invoices out of rvhich 01 is accepted by court and other are in process of approval / disposal.

V1 Rs.3.422 Million of saies tax refund was obtained on the basis of fake invoices of M/s. Rasasi Traders and M/s. Interactive Technologr Gateway while both are non existent and bogus firms.

vli Pecuniary advantages were taken by accused no'3 Iqbal Ahmed Magsi in the shape of illegal gratification for purchase of Plot No.430-D and 432-D, l8th Street DHA Phase VIII, Karachi by M/s. Al-Falah Impex , in-lieu of sanction of illegal refund claims.

vl11. Rs,82.767 Million out of Rs.94.6 Million of total refund claim by M/s. A1-Falah Impex were credited through Government treasury instruments into Account No.6-1-13-20311-714' 179219 of HMB Dhorajee Branch Karachi.

1X Rs.11.B Million out of Rs.94.6 Million of total refund claim by M/s. Al-Falah Impex were credited through Government treasury instruments into Account N0.5250201145501 Bank Al-Falah Limited Dhorajee Branch Karachi' x Out of Rs.11.8 Million Rs.11.4 Million was immediately transferred to M/s. Al-F'aizan International Bank Account operated by Faizan s/o. Abdul Wahid brother of Accused No'1 and o

xl. Payments of Al-Falah Impex were routed through Proprietors owll bank accounts or their employees bank accounts which were transferred back to these firms by Al-Falah Impex to prove bogus supplies as genuine in record of f'SR. Actually no supplies were made to M/s. AI-Falah Impex by any of the firms' x11 M/s. A1-Faiah ImPex bani< accounts rvere also used for money laundering, illegal refund and layering of other funds.

l'"

Hq

x111 Neither relevancy of input with the output was checked by the accused No.3 to 6 nor any suspicion was raised by them despite the fact that multiple invoices were issued in single day or daily invoices in series was generated by various suppliers which should have raised suspicion by seeing at a single glance. (bold added)

I

7.In support of the above allegations various tables have been set out in some paragraphs of the reference which are not set out again in this order in order to avoid repetition but can be found by referring to the reference itself.

B. Learired counsel for the petitioner Anfal proprietor of M/S A1 Falah Impex submitted that the petitioner was a genuine manufacturer of plastics and rnas entitled to the Sales tax refunds rvhich he had claimed and that there u,as no question of any of his invoices being bogus. In support of his contentions he showed that he had an office address for his company and a separate address for his martufacturing business. In this connection he referred to agreements in each case along r,vith correspondence which had been sent to him by the FBR and which he had received at such addresses and FBR reports sholving that his manufacturing units were operational. The fact that his electricity biils were low he put dorvn to ioad shedding and the fact that he had been running his manufacturing unit through his own personal generator. As such there was no material to connect to him to the offense for which he had been charged in the reference and for a-11 the above reasons he rvas entitled to post arrest bail.

Turning to the case of the Government officials.

I 9. Learned counsel for petitioner Abdul Rauf Nasir r'vho was the sanctioning officer of sales tax submitted that he was completely innocent; that it was not his function to check the genuineness of claims; that all the claims r't'ent through the automated STARR system rvhich checked the validity of any claims and that he simpiy signed off on such claims if they

+ts

had been validated by rhe STARR system and as such there was no wrong doing on his part as the STARR systern had validated all the claims *,hich rvere subject matter of this reference and as such there was no materiar against him and he'"r'as entitled to post arrest bail on merits. He arso belatedly contended that he was entitled to bail on medical grounds and referred to a number of doctor,s certificates in this regard. In support of his contentions he placecl reliance on Rule 29.4 of the sales tax rules and the cases of Mohammed Saeed Mehdi V State (2OO2 SCMR 282) and Mohammed Amin euershi V State (2OOT p.Cr,LJ

10.Learned counsel for the petitioner Kashif Naseer rvho r'r'as the processing officer of sales Tax essentially made the same arguments as petitioner Abdul Rauf Nasir above and relied on Rule 29 (Supra). According to her once the

STARR

report indicated that the craim u.as varid the petitioner had neither anrv obligation nor power not to approve the sales tax refund and if any officer had such ar_rthority/powers it u,as petitioner Abdul Rauf Nasir named above who was the sanctioning officer; that this was a pick and choose exercise by NAB as some of the other iRS officiars involved in the scam had been 1et off. As such for all the above reasons the petitioner was entitled to post arrest bail.

Aiders and abettors and. benamidars.

11' Learned counsel for petitioner Zubair Tufail lvho u.as on pre arrest bail and r'as also the proprietor of Interprast (pvt) limited submitted that he vn,as completely innocent of an\, \\rrong doing and that he had paid sales tai as per the concerned SRO; that as per sales tax 1au, he could havc no liability as over 5 years had passed and there \l/ere no records of his. transactions; that the offense had been committed by his employe.es Nisar Ahmed Vohra, Abid Rahim and Muhammad Azeem (accused No.22, 23 and 24 in the reference) lvho unknown to him had entered into a private business to seli the lower grade quality materials n,hich he

I -;

l,ir--

+tb

\,vas completely unaware of and they had even admitted their liabilit5i and had applied to NAB to accept a plea bargain on account'of their guilt which remained under consideration; that all his invoices were genuine; that he has not issued any flying invoices and that he had no control over what any other person such as Impex was doing with his invoices and as

-I

such this \,vas a case of further inquiry. With regard to malafide he submitted that this was floating on the face of the record by NAB not having any incriminating material against him vet they choose to malafide add him to the reference, Thus, for all the above reasons he submicted that he was entitled to the confirmation of his pre arrest bail. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on Syed Muzaffar Ali V Chairman NAB (2015 P.Cr.LJ 1569), Ali Shan v Director of Intelligence and investigation (IRS) Karachi (PTD 2016 2648) and the unreported case of Jameel Akhtar and others V Chairman NAB (CP.D I77O/16) dated 1,3-12-2017 passed by a DB of this court.

12.Learned counsel for petitioner Anis who was the proprietor of Ai Ubaid Enterprises and was on pre arrest bail submitted that he was completely innocent; that he had not issued any illegal sales tax invoice and as such had not abetted Impex in obtaining RS 2.4 m iliegal sales tax refund and as such he u,as entitled to the confirmation of his pre arrest bail.

13.Learned counsel for petitioner Majid Ali who was on pre arrest bail submitted that he had piayed no role in the alleged sa-les tax scarn. That he had nothing to do with Impex, any of the aider and abettor companies and was not a government sales tax official' He had wanted to buy a house but did not have the full amount of the purchase price and thus had asked his uncle Iqbal Ahmed Magsi who is an IRS official and accused No.3 in this reference for a loan' Such loan was given to him and he was completely unaware of the source of such loan (which documents shou'ed had come from

L1-'

2t+

Impex/petitioner No.1) arrd thus he rvas cornpletely innocent of anr,. wrong doing. According to him at best he couid be regarded as a benamidar of accused Iqbal Ahmed Magsi who has since absconded. He claimed that the maiafide of the NAB was including him in the reference in the first place and as such for all the above reasons he submrtted that his pre I arrest bail should be confirmed.

14.On the other hand NAB strongl), opposed the grant of both post arrest bail and pre arrest bail to alr the petitioners and contended that there was more than sufficient materie[ on record to show that a-ll the petitioners were connected 'uvith the offenses for ivhich the1, 636 been charged and took the court through various s.161 cr.pc statements anci otrrer relevant documents and as such both the petitioners respective petitions for post arrest bail should be dismissect and the orders granting some of the petitioners ad interim pre arrest bail should be recalied as the case mav be.

15.We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, carefully perused the material available on record and the case law cited at the bar.

General.

16.We u,ould also like to make it clear that the findings in this order are only based on a tentative assessment of the material available on record and shall have no bearing on the trial which shall be decided on merits, based on the evidence placed before the trial court.

White collar crimes

17.At the outset, as we have done before in other similar NAB cases, \ire observe that cases of r,vhite collar crime are generally of an intricate and complex nature and the r,vhole transaction and each component part of the scam needs to be vieu,ed in a holistic manner and not in isolatron. This is l4'-

lts

because in most cases the offence could not be committed without the'active involvement of all the accused in the chain of events which lead to the commission of the offense. However, notwithstanding this observation it is settled law that in cases of bail each of the accused needs in some way to be connected with the alleged offense through a specific role \- and in the case of non bailable offenses such as this there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is connected with the commission of the offense for which he is charged.

18.The current case, as with many NAB cases, is more a case. of a. joint criminal enterprise whereby every accused ptays their iole in order to achieve a criminal objective all of which they were aware of and couid not have been achieved tvithout the active participation of all involved.

19.In this sales tax scarn case it appears that the claimant was Anfal/Impex (the main accused) who obtained illegal sales tax refunds based on the fake and /or flying invoices provided by the other proprietorship co-accused most of who have entered into PB's and thereby have admitted their guilt and thus this sales tax scam could not have taken place without their active involvement as aiders and abettors. Likewise is the case of the IRS/FBR co-accused who willfully failed to exercise their authority in failing to check obvious and glaringly suspicious cases of sales tax refund which would have stood out to such experienced and senior officers. In essence with out the active involvement and connivance of all accused in this reference the Sales tax scam carried out by Anfal/Impex could never have taken place.

20.The accused in this case all claim that they are entirely innocent and not connected to the offence in any way' Without going into a deep appreciation of the material on record it' .would appear that through the reference, lz- l0

2n

mvestigation report and material collected by NAB which we have scanned that nearly all of the accused to a greater or lesser extent are connected to the cornmission of the alleged offence, It is more a question of degree.

21.With regard to the Government officials (sales tax officials) we have also taken into consideration that they are paid and employed to serve the State/province out of tax paybrs money and have a special duty to fiercely protect and safe guard the tax payers money and not enable it to be illegally misappropriated through corruption in performing their duties/ functions.

22.In the case of The State V Haji Kabeer Khan (pLD 2005 SC 364) the supreme court observed that it wouid exercise its discretionary powers to grant pre arrest bail in NAB cases in rare and exceptional circumstances in the following terms at p.372 para 9.

"Now turning towards the case arising out of Writ Petition No.20214 of 2OO2 wherein respondent had sought bail before arrest in Reierence No.3B of 2OO2. It is to be noted that under the NAB Ordinance there is no provision for grant of bail before arrest, therefore, this Court while examining the vires of 9(b) of the NAB Ordinance in the case of Khan Asfandyar Wali (ibid) took view that High Court shall exercise this power sparingly in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid reasons to be recorded in writing. In this behalf reference can also be made to the case of Meeran Bux v. The State pLJ 1986 (sic) 526 and Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan and another pLD 1983 SC 82. As such we are of the opinion that the powers for grant of bail conferred by this Court has to be exercised strictly keeping in view the observation made therein. (bold added)

23.The sarne position remains today for offenses of corruption charged under the NAO (rnhite collar crimes) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Rai Mohammed Khan V NAB (2017 SCMR P.1152) has emphasized that the grant of bait in such cases must be construed strictly and rigidly even if, as in that case

W

1l

72o

referred to above, the amount involved was on the lesser side being only'approx RS 12M (as opposed to over RS one billion in this case) in the follorving terms at p.1754 paraT;

"Under the principie of law and justice, each bail petition is to be decided on its own merits and the lalt, applicable thereto, horvever, this Court cannot remain oblivious of the undeniable fact that the tendency of corruption in every field, has become a threatening danger to the State economy, striking on its roots. The public money, allocated for social sector and economic well being of the poor people, is consistently embezzled, I misappropriated at a large scale and why the majority of the population is deprived of essential daily utilities, like pure drinking water, health care and education facilities, etc. It has become the foremost obligation of each and every institution, including the Judicator, to arrest this monster at this stage, before it goes out of proportion, posing threat to the very survival of the State and State economy, therefore, the Courts shall apply the Anti-Corruption laws somewhat rigidly, once on fact the case is made out, at bail stage, against the accused person. Distinction, however, is to be drawn betlveen the ordinary criminal cases and of corruption on the above analysis and grounds, lthile dealing with bail matter to an accused person, charged for such like crimes and also at the time of conviction, once the case is proved against him then, Courts are not supposed to shor.v any mercy by taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence."

Findings on beneficiaries.

24.With regard to Petitioner Anfal who is the proprietor of M/S Al- Falah Impex we are not persuaded by the agreements which he has submitted r.vhich show that he rented office space and a plot rvhere he manufactured his plastics for the following reasons:

(A)5.161 Cr,PC statements of Syed Tahir Mehmood and Saifullah clearly indicate that no office premises were rented to either Anfal or Impex where he claims to have rented them. Even if these offices were in the use of Impex they were mere post boxes as opposed to fully functioning offices as is evident liom the S.i61 Cr.PC statements of Muhammad Muzamil and Jawed Akhtar rvhich . show that there was hardly any electric

?2t

consumption at the office. With regard to alleged TCS receipts there is no material to suggest that these were signed by Anfal or any one associated lvith Impex. They could have been signed by a chokidar especially as the office was apparently not in use .As to the letters sent by the FBR/IRS we place little reliance on these as it appears that IRS/FBR officials were mixed up in this sales tax scam.

(B)with regard to the plot where the alleged manufacturing unit was based the S. 161 Cr.PC statement of Syed Amir Ali states that the plot vvas rented to Anfal from 01-OB-2010 to 30-07-2oll rvhich is a period of 11 months however he states that no factory was operational on the said plot for at least 7 months from the date of signing the tenancy agreement. Also no generator was installed on the said premises. This statement completely destroys the stance that there was a manufacturing unit on site which was capable of manufacturing such a large amount of plastics as claimed by petitioner No. 1/Impex. In addition Muhammed Muzamil clearly states in his S. 161 Cr.PC statement that based on billing the consumption of electricity on the plot where the manufacturing unit was set up based on his expertise is not enough to run a plastic manufacturing unit, As per S.161 Cr.PC statement of Jawed Akhtar there was also no application to place a generator on the plot. The fact that according to the petitioner he was running his manufacturing unit aimost exclusively through a generator simply does not appeal to reason, logic or common sense. Even, if such a manufacturing unit n'as in place it would not have the capacity to generate so many sales tax invoices for refund which we will come to below.

25.In connection with the sales tax refunds these amounted to the colossa-l amount of Rs.94.567 Million which indicates that an enormous amount of plastic was manufactured during this short period of 11 months even if the unit was fully operational (which the material on record suggests that it was not)which does not seem possible.

26.In fact it appears from the material before us that it was not possible and that most of the sales tax refunds are based on fake andlor flying invoices.

27.At this stage it is worth pointing out the modus operandi of how this and other mega sales tax refund scalns l3

work. A fake invoice is in respect of goods which simply do not exist but'uvhose existence is claimed through fake invoices made either by the claimant or a third pafty for use by the clai'mant to make a sales tax refund. A ,,flying invoice,, is generally where A sells a good to B, B hos,ever is not registered for sales tax so he does not take an invoice for the -i good from A. A ensures that an invoice is made out in favour of C on higher rates. C who is registered for sales tax claims back the sales tax on the invoice from the Sales tax department and in return A is paid a commission by C out of the recovered illegal sales tax for providing the flying invoice which enabled the illegal claim by C.

28.With the stakeholders A and C in connivance with each other the automated STARR system can easily be circlrmvented because all the stakeholders are on board and all the invoices etc will tally and lead to a va_lid report being generated through the STARR system hence the need for the concerned government officials who have the authority and power to check the system being extra vigilant. In fact the modus operandi is probably so prevalent that it is likely that a number of the government officers who are meant to be monitoring the sales tax refund scheme are probably also involved in such scams and thereby willfully fail to exercise their authority to try and prevent the scam. Rather than protecting the public money they are involved in the illegal misappropriation of the same.

29.In this case it is significant that accused No's 9, 1O, 11,13,14,15,L6,L7 all being proprietorships have already entered into plea bargains and accepted their guilt in providing fake or flying invoices to Impex on which Impex claimed illegal sales tax. In addition 4 co-accused being employees of Accused No.B Zubair Tufail applied for a PB u,hich is under consideration. 2 other co-accused proprietorships have absconded and thus nearly all the proprietorships who aided and abetted Anfal/Impex in Lr'

?2s

claiming illegal sales tax through fake and flying invoices have accepted their guilt. Thus, if the aiders and abettors who provided the main accused Anfal/lmpex with either fake and /or flying invoices in order to make its illegal sales tax ciaim have admitted their guilt by entering into PB's this adds weight to Impex's/Anfal's culpability since without these fake and/or flying invoices the sales tax scam could never have taken place.

30.The 5.161 statement of Mohammed Zaheer who has nou, become an approver fully sets out this practice/modus operandi as occurred in the instant case.S.161 statements of Imran Khan and Hassan Ali also speak about this practice of setting up fake companies (Ms Rasasi Traders (serial No.B) and Interactive Technologies Gateway (serial No.20) in order to produce fake and/or flying sales tax invoices both of which companies were used by Impex in order to make illegal sales tax refund'claims as set out in the table at para 8 of the reference along with a number of other companies included in this reference who as already mentioned have entered into PB's.(Noorani Agency (Serial No.2), Peoples Trading company (Serial No.4), Vohra Brothers (Serial No.5), Khawaja Brothers (Serial No.6), Beletnuts corporation (Serial No.11), Sheikh Chemical Co (Serial No.12), Loyal Traders (serial No.14), Hasseb Impex (serial No.15), Royal sponge and plastics (serial No.16), Abdul Hamied Agar (serial No.19),lmperial plastics and house hold (seriai No.2B) and Luqman and brothers (serial No.35) along with 4 others who entefed into PB during the investigation stage and thus are not includecl in the reference but form a part of the table being IAV Polymers (serial No.10), Anjum Corporation (serial t No.9) and sheikh International (serial No.24) 3 i. In our view however the final nail in the coffin of the petitioner in respect of his baii application is the S.164 Cr.PC statement of Muhammed Zaheer which shor,t's the complete modus operandi of the scam and Impex's involvement lz-'z

?2q

through Anfal and his brother Muhammad Umair (accused No.2 in the reference who has absconded) which is set out below:

STATEMENT OF MUHAMMAD ZAHEERU/5. 164 Cr.P.C. I used to work in Noorani Agency and peoples Trading Cornpany as Book Keeper & Outdoor / Import Assistant. Name of Noorani Agency's owner is An',var Ali b and name of ou,ner of Peoples Trading Company is Noor Ali (both have entered into PB's). They both are Importers. They used to import chemical and plastic particles, During service whatever work has been given we did such as open a bank account in the name of staff or made Sales Tax Invoices and put on signatures thereon as rveil as lvitness in bank loan papers. Beside me other staff members were also bound to do al1 these works. On instructions of owners of Noorani Agency and Peoples Trading Company I opened an account in Soneri Bank, Jodia Bazar Branch. Plastic parties rvhich imported u,as sold out to unregistered brokers of the market and the amount received from it deposited in my account which is in Soneri Bank or Bank Al-Habib, Jodia Bazx Branch and my wife's account which is a-lso in Bank Al-Habib. Likewise, introduced in Faysal Bank, Jodia Bazar Branch and account Number was 3384. In the same manner Irfan also had to open an account with Bank Al-Habib, Jodia Bazx, Karachi and Sindh Bank r.vho was rvorking r,l,ith me and in that accounts amount carne from unregistered sales was deposited. The Sales Tax Invoice of Plastic particles which were imported was sold out to Umair (accused No.2) with goods and the rate of which was 8O-1OO rupees per bag and this Sales Tax Invoice used to get by Umair and sometimes he sent Anfal (the petitioner). I sent some invoices to Umair through Khawaja Brothers and Anjum Corporations (both entered into PB). Sales Tax Invoices of Noorani Agency, Peoples Trading Company and Khawaja Brothers (all entered into. PB)which used to be sold out without goods name. of that companies are Al-Falah Impex (the petitioner), Tarks Impex, Ammar Enterprises, Al-Abeer Enterprises, Noor Plastic Industry, Naif Plastic Industry and Raheel Plastic Industry. The bank transaction of the invoices r,vhich were sold out without goods to the said companies in compliance of Section 73 of Sales Ta,r Act, 1990 was made through my and my wife's account which is in Bank Al-Habib bearing No. 2206 and in the Account of Irfan and my Faysal bank account i.e. 3351 Pay Orders were used to prepare. Through my Faysal Bank Account introduced Al-Falah Impex (petitioner). The invoices of Noorani Agency which used to be sell I got Rs.3 to 5 and likewise from Khawaja Brothers and Anjum Corporation also. The amount which credited in our accounts of u.

t6

72e

unregistered sale we used to write names of Market Brokers on the back of cheques. I was transferred some amount form my Faysal Bank aceount to Al_ Falah Impex account (the petitioner). Whatever works of Noorani Agency and peoples Trading Company rn,as required to do I did on directions of owners and I did just they are friends of my o'vvner. This is my statement. (bold added) Cross Examin ation:

..NIL"

sd/- 16. t0.2077 M. Shahrukh Shahnawaz CJ&JM-XSouthKarachi.

32.The material in the reference shorving how the illegal sales tax was transferred from Impex to different companies and accounts (including into the Account of M/A Al Faizan International opened and operated by the 3d brother of Anfal and Umair. Faizan who is accused No.7 in the reference and has absconded) also in our view points to the illegality of claiming illegal saies tax refunds where positive attempts have been made to hide/disguise the originai source of funds which in effect may amount to the offense of money Iaundering. The simpl qr""tio., in this regard is rvhether an honest businessman who had legaily claimed sales tax refunds would move such monies in such manner? Or even pay sales tax officers (for which lve have seen documentary evidence in respect of payments to accused No.3 Iqbai Ahmed Magsi an IRS sanctioning officer lvhich was used in part purchase of a house)? The answer is no. The involvement of the petitiiiners brother who is accused No.2 in the reference and has norv absconded (Muhammed Umair) along with his other brother Faizan who is accused No.7 in the reference and is also an absconder is also another pointer as to the illegal actions being carried out by Impex.

33.Thus, based on the material before us when taken as a whole and read in a holistic manner we are of the considered vier,v that this is not a case of further inquiry and that there is sufficient materia-l on record to connect petitioner Anfal the proprietor of M/S A1 Falah Impex to the offense for which he has been charged under the reference

which caused a colossal loss to the national exchequer and as such his petition for post arrest bail is dismissed.

Findings on Government officials

34.Turning to the cases of petitioner Abdul Rauf Nasir who was the sanctioning officer of sales tax and petitioner )r Kashif Naseer who was the processing officer of sales Tax.

35.Both these petitioners have been given a specific role in the reference at Para's 15 and 17 respectively which are set out beloi,l, for ease of reference:

15.That the investigation revea-led that the accused No.4 Abdul Rauf Nasir being Sanctioning Officer of Sales Tax Refund passed 2x sanction orders and sanctioned the illegal claim of accused No.1 for the months of Dec-12 amounting to Rs.11.593 Million lvithout establishing genuineness of the claim as allorved under rule 29 (a) of sales tax refund rules. It is worth mentioning here the fact that M/s. Al-Falah Impex was claiming refund of millions of rupees agaihqt invoices of suppliers who were generating either multiple invoices under Rs.5O,OOO/- or invoices on daily basis in series which create suspicion only by seeing at a glance and also despite the fact that sales were made to unregistered and fake buyers no suspicion was raised by the accused nor any objections were listed while sanctioning sales tax refund claims. (bold added)

17, That the investigation reveaied that the accused No.6 Kashif Naseer being processing officer of refund claims pertaining to M/s. Al-Falah Impex, without establishing genuineness of the claim, as allor,ved under n-rie 29(4) of Sales Tax Refund rules, deliberately & illegaliy failed to exercise his authority to prevent the grant & rendered undue benefit / favour and in that n ay misused his authority. No suspicion was raised by acc.used No.6 nor any objections were listed while processing these sales tax refund claims despite the 1 fact that the firm was recently registered and started ciaiming refund of millions of rupees against invoices of suppliers and that no electricity consumption was shown on manufacturing unit and sales were made to unregistered and fake buyers' Accused processed and recommended for sanction O3 x illegal sales tax refund claims of M/s' Al-Falah Impex on fake I flying invoices on the manufacturing of zero rated supplies causing loss to t4 i8

national exchequer to the tune of Rs.L4,226rO42. (bold added)

36.Both these petitioners have placed heary reliance on Rule 29 of the sales Tax rules and the fact that once a sales tax refund application is cleared by STARR they no longer have any role to play. In this respect it is important to exarnine Rule 29 rr,,hich is set out below for ease of reference.

"29.Security and processing of refund claim.-(1) On submission of a refund claim, the Refund Receipt Section shall confirm that the claim is complete in a1l respects, after u,hich it shall be loaded in the system for assigning the claim a unique identification number.

(2)After assigning the unique identification number, the ICREST] shall cross match the data on soft copy with the data available in the system and process the claim by applying the risk parameters and generate analysis report indicating the admissible amount as well as the amount not validated on the basis of automated risk criterion along-with the objections raised by the system.

(3)The processing oflicer shal1 fonvard the claim file along-lnith the analysis report referred to in sub-rule (2) to the officer-in-charge for further necessary action, (4) Where the Processing Officer or the officer-in- charge is of the opinion that any further inquiry or audit is required in respect of amount not cleared by the [CREST] or for any other reason to establish genuineness and admissibility of the claim, he may make or cause to be made such inquiry or audit as deem appropriate, after seeking approval from the concerned Additional Collector and inform the refund claimant accordingly. (bold added)

37.In our vierv Rule 29 does not mean that once a claim is ruled "valid" by STARR the concerned officials have no authority or power to question STARR's auto generated report and simply act as rubber stamps for such reports.

38.Along with the soft copy which is a part of the STARR process a hardcopy file is also moved on which STARR's generated report is placed. In our view once the STARR generated report is marked valid this does not exclude the concerned officers from questioning it if a red flag is raised and he has some suspicions.

72a

39.In this case the petitioners were the processing officer, officer in charge, sanctioning officer respectively (who fall squarely under Rule 29) and the STARR report though marked valid which we have seen should have raised a red flag to such experienced officers. Nameiy so many ciaims in one day being made by one company (lmpex) or through a i series of numbers close in time especially as Impex was a newly registered company. One glance at such a report should have led to them checking the existence of the relevant companies concerned in the refund claim or at the very least marking there suspicions on the file for their superiors to consider. However they did nothing in the face of such obvious and glaring anomaiies.

40.The concerned officials at the IRS dealing with Sales Tax refunds do not live in ivory towers. They know full well that stakeholders have developed a way to circumvent the STARR system by the modus operandi mentioned above and as such I they need to be extra vigilant in scrutinizing such hard copy files and the STARR report. Even the S.161 Cr.PC statement of Muhammed Javed suggests STARR reports may need to be further scrutinized due to their inability to scrutinize the saLes invoices of M/S Al Falah Impex that is sold to an unregistered person hence the petitioners being senior and experienced officers u,ould also have been aware of the "veil limitations of the STARR system and the need to be extra vigilant. However, Abdul Rauf Nasir as refund sanctioning authority has blindly in a mechanical manner without considering the file, the report or applying his mind signed trn o sales tax refund payments in favour of Impex amounting to millions of rupees.

47.Most significantly from other documents before us it also appears that in respect of suppliers of AI Falah Impex Refund claim out of the 10 processed by petitioner Kashif Naseer one is an absconder, 3 have entered into PB's, one has applied for PB, one is a fake company and one is a ?n

22q

witness in this case. Whilst out of 9 sanctioned by petitioner Abdut Rauf Nasir B have entered into PB's. Accused Iqbal Ahmed Magsi who rvas also a sanctioning officer and is an accused in this reference has already absconded. Such failures on their part are not just one off isolated incidences but rather form a consistent pattern of willful failure to .4. exercise their authority in respect of Impex

42.As to Abdul Rauf Nasir's belated claim for bail on medical grounds we note that no medical board has been constituted by any court to give its opinion as to his medical condition and even otherwise the medical documents placed on record do not appear to meet the legal requirements for the grant of bail on medical grounds and thus the case of Mohammed Saeed Mehdi V State (2OO2 SCMR 282) is of no assistance to him. Likeu,ise the case of Mohammed Amin Quershi V State (2OO7 P.Cr.LJ 105) is distinguishable on its own particular facts as in this case the criminal intent on the par.t of the petitioners as discussed above can prima facie be inferred ffom their conduct in that they deliberately and rvi1lful1y failed to exercise their authority to properly scrutinize the refund claims by Impex especialiy as such failure to scrutinize was not a one off event but lvas consistently missing in the case of Impex which they should have been alerted to at a glance being experienced and senior officers for the reasons mentioned above.

43.Had these officers exercised their authority as they were required to do under Rule 29 this Sales Tax scam would have been prevented and thus they played an active role in enabling Impex to illegally claim massive illegal sales tax refunds rririch caused a colossal loss to the state exchequer.

44.We do not consider that this is a pick and choose exercise by NAB whereby certain IRS officials have been let off. As explained by NAB they have requested and are waiting to receive other files from the IRS/FBR and once these files

W

2l

7Zo

are received references may be filed against other delinquent IRS officers involved in this and other sales tax scuuns as NAB's investigations into iilegal sales tax refunds is on going.

45.Thus, based on the material before us we are of the considered view that prima facie there is sufficient material on record to connect both petitioner Abdul Rauf Nasir and petitioner Kashif Naseer to the offenses for which they have been charged under the reference and as such both their petitions for post arrest bail are hereby dismissed.

Findings on Aiders and abettors and benamidars.

46.With regard to petitioners (Anis and Majid Ali) both of these petitioners are on pre arrest bail and it is settied law that there must be some eiement of malafide on the part of NAB for these petitioners to be admitted to pre arrest bail. In this respect reference is made to the cases of Rana Mohammed Arshad V Muhammad Rafique (pLD 2009 SC 427) which r,vas more recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtar Ahmad v. The State and others (20L6 SCMR 2064).

47.Only Majid Ali has claimed malafides on account of the fact that at best he was an unwitting benamidar and as such it was malafide on the part of NAB to include him in the reference.

48.Malafide is difficult to prove and in this respect often it needs to be inferred from the facts and circumstances surround.ing the particular case. In this respect reference is made to the Supreme Court case of Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others V State (unreported dated 28-07-2017).In so far as the case'of Majid Ali is concerned there may be tinges of malafide by including him in the reference.

Turning to the case of Anis who is proprietor of M/S AI Ubaid Enterprises on merits.

lj')

73r

. He has been given a specific role at pa::a 23 of the reference. .In essence he issued a flying invoice to Impex which enabled Impex to claim RS 24.5 lacs in illegat sa-les tax refund. We have seen the invoice issued by the petitioner in favor of Impex which he has not denied. In our view this is a flying invoice which the petitioner illegally gave to Impex to enable it to receive illegal sales tax refund. As mentioned earlier the petitioner has not been able to show any malafide on the part of NAB and in our vierv there is sufficient material on record to shor,l, that he aided and abetted Impex in receiving illegal sales tax refund and as such his pre arrest bail is recalied with immediate effect.

Turning to. the case of Majid Ali on merits.

50, In our vierv his case is on a different and better footing to the other petitioners. It appears that he was neither a company mixed up in the illegal sales tax scaln nor was he an IRS/FBR official. It was his uncle accused No.3 Iqbal Ahmed Magsi (IRS Official) who loaned him approx 31 lacs to purchase his property of which he was putting in the majority share of the purchase price, Although this loan had come from Iqbal Ahmed Magsi there is no materia-l on record to show that the petitioner Majid Ali would have known that this loan in effect came from Impex and NAB has not been able to controvert this position. As such it appears that prima facie he was unwittingly made a benamidar in respect of at least part of the property and since we have a-lready found that there may have been tinges of malafide in his case we find his case to be one of further inquiry and thus confirm his pre arrest bail on the same terms and conditions subject to him furnishing an additional solvent surety of RS 1O lacs to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this court.

51.With regard to Petitioner Zubak Tufail who is the CEO of Interplast (Pvt) nho is on pre arrest bail he was been

VL

U

given a specific role in the reference at para 19 which reads as under:

"Para 19. That the investigation revealed that the accused No.B Zubair Tufail CEO, Director as well as signing authority of bank accounts of M/s Interpiast (Pvt) Ltd being the beneficiary of the act of corruption and corrupt practices, obtained unlawful gain of Rs.6.196 Million by illegally issuing and se[ing flying invoices of 6L,95O x bags of plastic Moulding Compound (PMCI. Further, he submitted false and fabricated evidence of payments made by M/s Al- Falah Impex which is his own money routed through Interplast (Pvt) Ltd or its employees, bank accounts shown as proof of payments made on behalf of M/s. Al-Falah Impex, in order to sho'"v false compliance of Section 73 of Sales Tax Act, 1990. (Details are mentioned in para B, c. i of Investigation Report) (bold added).

52.His employees (accused No,22, 23 and 24), who are also on pre arrest bail and r,vho have applied for plea bargain (which is still under consideration) have also been given specific roles in aiding and abetting petition er Zubatr Tufail at para's 33 to 35 of the reference rvhich are set out as under to emphasize how Tufails employees aided and abetted him in the sales Tax scam.

Para. 33. That the investigation revealed that the accused No.22 Nisar Ahmed Vohra manager of Interplast (Pvt) Ltd and co-Signatory in Interplast (h/t) Ltd Faysal Bank account No.43O-887-OO11OO3 aided and abetted accused Zubair Tufail, by signing cheques along with accused Zubair Tufail, deposited in M/s. Al-Falah Impex Faysal bank account which were re-submitted into Interplast (htl Ltd same account immediately and in this r,vay abetted the accused in shorving fake proof of payments made ou behalf of M/s Al-Falah Impex, just to show fake compliance of Section 73 of Sales Tax Act, 1990.

Para. 34. That the investigation revealed that the accused No.23 Abid Rahim Aided and abetted accused Zabair Tufail and accused Anfal by routing M/s Interplast (Pvt) Ltd. funds amounting to Rs. 3O.OO Million through his bank account number OOOT-7900692003 which is re-submitted into Interplast (Pvt) Ltd another bank account and in this . way abets the accused in showing fake proof of payments made on behalf of M/s Al-Falah Impex,

/L

just to shorv fake compliance of Section 73 of Sales Tax Act, i990. Also abetted in depositing cheques of Interplast (Pvt) Ltd in the bank accounts of M/s Al- Falah Impex and vice versa.

Para. 35. That the investigation revealed that the accused No. 24 Muhammad Azeem aided and abetted accused Zuabir Tufail and accused Anfal by routing 1_ M/s. Interplast (Pvt) Ltd. funds amounting to Rs.28.6L2 Million through his bank account number 00077900697003 which is re-submitted into M/s Interplast (Pvt) Ltd another bank account and in this way abetted the accused in showing fake proof of payments made on behalf of M/s Al-Falah Impex, just to show fake compliance of Section 73 of Sales Tax Act, 1990.(bold added)

53.At the outset we find no material to suggest that there has been any malafides on the part of the NAB whilst including petitioner Zuba:r Turail in the reference.

54.The authorities relied on by him are also of little, if any, assistance to him as they are a-11 distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of his case. Syed Muzaffar Ali I (Supra) concerned a case where NAB had no objection to the grant of bail and the petitioners deposited with the chairman NAB the ful1 amount claimed by NAB whereas in this case NAB has objected to the grant of bail and the petitioner has neither deposited nor offered to deposit anything in this case. Ali Shan's case (Supra) concerned a bailable offense under the Sales Tax Act rather than a non bailable offense under the NAO and the unreported case of Jameel Akhtar and others V Chairman NAB (CP.D 1770116) dated 13-12-2017 passed. by a DB of this court r,vas based on the rule of consistency.

55.It is also pertinent to note at this stage that as already mentioned above out of the 20 or so proprietorships who aided and abetted Impex and were beneficiaries of this sales tax scam with Impex nearly all of them bar Zubarr Trrfail and Anis (whose.case is dealt with above) have admitted their guilt and entered in to a PB.

t,

7sq

56.With regard to the 5 year limitation on saies ta.x crimes ',ve find this irrele\rant as the petitioner r.eceived a call trir notice well before the expiry of the 5 1'ear period on 05-03- 2016 in which he deliberately failed to produce the requirecl documents r,r,'hich were then in his possession. Even otherwise the petitioner is being charged r.vith an offense of corruption. under the NAO nhich b.r, r,irtue of S.3 NAO has overridi.ng effect over other lau,s including the sales Tax Act. The reference therefore is under the NAO and not under the Sales Tax Act so the 5 year limitation penod is irreler,,ant.

5'7. From the material piaced before r_is it is quite apparent that the petitioner was an aider and abettor and beneficierry in this Sales tax scam. His employees Nisar Ahmed Vohra, Abid Rahim and Muhammad Azeem (accused No.22, 23 arfi, 24 in the reference) in our view u'ere simpl1. the tools behind the implementation of the scam by the petitioner whose role and modus operandi is similar to that set out by approver Muhammed Zaheer in his 5.164 statement as reproduced { earlier in this order. Namely, his employees (acc'used 22, 23 and 24) u,ere used to prepare flying invoices and transfer the illegal monies between their own personal banl< accounts and Interplast's and Impex's bank accounts. Being humbie employees they are more than prepared to ta-l<e the fall ior their boss hence their application for PB. It is does not appeal to reason that emplo\rees earning between RS 25,000 to 100,000 per month could themselves afibrd to pay RS 61 lacs b1, rvay of PB and is post probably being paid on their behalf by Zubatr Tufail u,hich if accepted would enable him to claim that no loss had been caused by his actions. Even the empioyees (accused 22, 23 and. 24) application for PB is set out on the letter head of Interplast (Pvt) limited which reveals that thelr u,ere acting on behalf of Interplast.

58.The documents which have been sl-ro'*,n to us Lr'; NAB aJso clearly shorv horr,' the funds in respect of the illega] sales ta*x scam \,vere routed through the accused empiolrees of Interplast in millions of RS in order to hide the scam a:rd ho'"v rf,

2C'

ry vast sums of monies amounting to RS 30.375 M was routed consistently between 11-05-201i to 11-09-20i1 between Interplast's bank account to Al Falah Impex's bank account and back again to Interplast's bank account. Learned counsel for Interplast had no explanation as to why monies'w.ould go from his account into Impex's account { and were returned back into Interplast's account on a regular basis. This clearly shows in our view that Interpiast rvas fully involved with Impex in providing flying invoices to Impex to enable Impex to claim iliegal sales tax refuncls.

59.Likeq,ise the NAB shorved us the Faysal Bank account of Impex, lvhich is set out below for ease of reference, r,r'hich shorvs regular debits and credits between Interplast and Impex for which once again the petitioner had no explanation. It is notable that many of these deposits are being made by Umair and Faizan the brothers of Afrian/Impex who are both accused in this reference (and have absconded) and Abid Rahim an employee of { Interplast/ Zubiar Tufail. lf Zubatr Tufail had nothing to do with Impex and the saies tax scam rvhy is he regularly paying into Impex's account and receiving back from that account such regular and large sums of money? The explanation is that he is helping to conceal his role in Impex's illegal sales ta>i scarn through which he provided flying invoices' Significantly the large amounts involved and their frequency of debit and credit completely negates any concept of any of his rogue/unauthorized employees (accused No.22, 23, and 24) running a minor private business behind the petitioners back. Thp record reveals that Ztbair Tufail and his employees accused No.22, 23 and 24 wete all acting together and were all on aboard in aiding and abetting Impex in its sales tax scam.

FAYSAL BANK ACCOUNT Or. M/S. ALFALH IMPEX

Inst. No. Date Debit Credlt Title of Account Bank/ l

I

t Account No. Branch F aysal Bank 8895718 ll lMay /11 lloo,ooo Interplast 430-BB7 -

ry (P\,! ) Ltd 00 1 1003 Shalrr-a-e- F a SA 88957 t7 11/LIay/11 200,000 Interplast 430-B87- Faysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 0011003 Shahra-e- Iiaisarl it 29088460 t3lMay / t1 600,00 InterpLast 430-887 - Faysal Bank (Pvt. ) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-c - Faisal II 9307049 ).a lMay I 11, 400,000 Interplast 430-887 - Fal,sal Bank (Pvt ) Ltd. 0011003 Shahra-c'- Farsal II 93070s0 t4lMay I rt 200,000 Interplast 430-887- Faysal Bank { (Pvt,) Ltd. 0011003 Shahra-e- Faisal (ll) 9307036 lslMayltl 850,000 Interpiast 430-887- Faysal Bank (Pv't ) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-e- Faisal (ll) 9307037 15/May/ 11 660,000 Interplast 430-BB7- Faysal Bank (Pvt ) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-e- Farsal II 9307038 15/May/ 11 490,000 Interplast 430-887- F a1'sal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-e- Faisal II 29088454 t4 /May / t1 2,000,000 Interplast Faizan (P\,'t.) Ltd.

29088458 t6 lMay i rl 6,00,00c Interplast 430-887 - (Pvt ) Ltd. 0011003

9307051 16 lMay I 11 900,000 Interplast 430-887 - Faysal Bank (Pvt ) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-e- Farsal II 9307052 t6lMaylll 600,000 Interplast 430-887- Faysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 00 1 1003 Shahra-e- Faisal II 93070.53 t6lMa5'/ 1r s00,000 Interplast 430-887- Fa_vsa.l Bank { (t\r ) Lrd. 001 1003 Shah ra-e- Faisal II 29088451 17lMayl11 2,000,000 Interplast 430-887 - Faysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra- e- Faisal (ll) 9307070 t7 lMay I 11 400,000 Interplast 430-BB7- Faysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-e- Faisal (ll) 930707 1, 17 lMay ltt 200,000 Interplast 430-887 - Favsai Banl< (Pvt ) Ltd. o0 1 1003 Shahra -e Irarsal II 29038457 1B/May/ 11 6,00,000 Interplast 430-887- Fary'sal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shalrr a-e- Far sal il 9307099 20 lNlay I 1,1 600,000 Interplast 430-BB7- Faysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-c- Faisal II 29088456 23 lNIa1, l1l 6,00,000 Interplast 430-887- Pal,sel [3anl' (Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahla-e- Farsal (ll) 9581239 28lJunlll 800,000 Interplast 430-887- F-aysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 0011003 Shahra-e- Faisal (ll) 9sB 1290 281 Jwnl 7r 650,000 Interplast Faysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. Shahra-e- Farsal II 29088467 28lJun I t1 1,550,000 Interplast 430-BB7- Faysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-e- Faisal II 9581297 29 lJwn/ ll 8s0,000 Interplast 430-887- Fat,sal Bank {Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahr:L-e- liaisal (ll) 30/Jun/ 11 850,000 lnterplast Pvt Ltd

-o

958 1300 30/Jun/ 11 400,000 Interplast 430-BB7- Faysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-e- Faisal (ll ) 9798s81 30/Jun/ 11 300,000 Interplast 430-887- Faysal Banl< (Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-e- Faisal (ll) 9798584 2lJuIltt 650,000 Interplast 430-887- Faysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahra-e- Faisal (II ) 9798583 2lJullIt 700,000 lnterplast 430-887- Faysal Bank (Pvt. ) Ltd. 001 1003 Shahla-e- Faisal (ll ) .1. 29088466 2lJullrt 700,000 Interplast 430-887- Faysal Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. 00 1 1003 Shahra-e- Faisal (II) 4lJ'a.llll 100,000

29088469 alJuIllt 1,450,000 lnterplast Deposlted (Pvt.) Ltd. by faizan -

6lJutl tr 1, 150,000 Interplast Deposited (Pvt.) Ltd. by falzan -

34388205-B

29ABB47 I 6lJutll]. 1, 1 50,000 Interplast Deposlted (Pvt.) Ltd, by falzan -

9798594 6lJutlll 5s0,000 Interplast (Pvt.) Ltd.

9798604 I

6lJull tt 800,000 Interplast (Pvt.) Ltd.

9798592 6lJull tt 800,000 Interplast (Pvt.) Ltd.

{ 29088470 7 lJullrt Interplast Deposite d (Pvt.) Ltd. by Abtd Rahlrn

11/Ju1/ i i 1,1 10,000 Interplast I (Pvt.) Ltd.

9798646 t3lJull IL 900,000 Interplast Deposited (Pvt.) Ltd. by Umair o32t-

925800 I

9798647 13/Ju1/ 11 675,000 lnterplast Deposited (Pvt.) Ltd. by Umair o32l-

13i Juli 11 1,500,000 Interplast Deposlted (Pvt.) Ltd. by Abid Rahlm

13/Jul/ 11 1,160,000 Interplast Deposited (Pvt.) Ltd. by Abid Rahim 3438820 r L6lJulllt 2,660,000 Interplast (Pvt.) Ltd.

1Bi Ju1/ 1 1 2,650,000 Interplast (Pvt.) Ltd.

20/Jutl rl 1,750,000 Interpiast I Deposite d (Pvt.) Ltd. by Umair

c.4

73s

20 lJulllt l 1,700,000 interplast Deposite d (Pvt.) Ltd. by Umair

20 lJull 11 3,500,000 Interplast Deposited (Pvt.) Ltd. by faizan

34388205-B

26lJulltr 1,540,000 Interplast Deposited (Pvt.) Ltd. by Umair

33304476 27 lJutltl 1,040,000 Interplast Deposlted (Pvt.) Ltd. by Abid Rahim I 33304477 27 lJull t1 500,000 llnterplast | (Pvt.) Ltd.

9798s45 28lJutllI 550,000 Interplast Deposited (F'vt.) Ltd. by Umalr

9798546 28lJull tl 440,000 lnterplast Deposite d (Pvt.) Ltd. by Umair

9798547 28 lJuIl tl 560,000 interplast Deposite d (Pvt.) Ltd. by Umair

29lJulltl 1,550,000 Interplast Deposite d (Pvt.) Ltd. by Abid Rahim 3lAugl rl 730,000 Interplast Deposite d (Pvt.) Ltd. by faizan-

34388205-B

si Aug/ 11 1,550,000 Interplast Deposited (Pvt.) Ltd. by falzan-

34388205-B

3/Aug/ 11 1,680,000 Interplast Deposited (Fvt.) Ltd. by faizan-

I

3438820s-B 3/A"r/ 11 T595-oo0 Ir-rterplast Deposite d + (Pvt.) Ltd. by faizan- l I

343882C5-8

15/Sep/ 11 2,050,000 Interplast (Pvt.) Ltd

16/Sep/ 11 2,000,000 Interplast (Pvt.) Ltd.

60.. These banking transactions and nexus between lnterplast and its employees and Impex lAnfal through his brother Umair and Fatzan (both absconders) is also shown through the s.161 cr.PC statements of bank officials lmran, Noman Azim Saru,ar and Muhammed Jar'vaid.

61.As mentioned earlier the petitioner has not been able to show any malafide on the part of NAB and in our view there is sufficient materia-l on record to show that the petitioner aided and abetted Impex in receiving illegal sales tax refunds which caused a massive loss to the national exchequer and as such his pre arrest bail is recalled with immediate effect'

73q

In summary.

(a). The post arrest bail petitions of Anfal, Abdul Rauf Nasir and Kashif Naseer stand dismissed.

(b). The pre arrest bail earlier granted to Anis Zakariya and Zubatr Tufaii is recalled rvith immediate effect.

I

(c). The'pre arrest bail earlier granted to M4id Ali is confirmed on the same terms and conditions subject to furnishing an additional solvent surety of RS one million (ten lacs) to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this court.

62.A copy of this order shall be transmitted by the office to Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad who shali immediately issue written orders that due to the potential short comings of the STARR system all the IRS/FBR or other officers concerned with the Sales Tax Refund process must be extra vigilant in checking the claims and the information contained in the hard copy files notwithstanding a valid STARR report so that the menace of illegal sales tax refunds + through use of fake and /or flying invoices may be stamped out with a caution that a failure to perform their duties in this respect may result in legal consequences as such offences fall under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 and in effect they are the last barrier which needs to be crossed in ord.er for such false claims to be allowed and such scams to succeed.

63.The above petitions stand disposed of in the above terms except C.P.No. D'271712017 Z:ubair Farid Tufail and others which the office shali put up before this Bench on 13- 03-2013.when the petitions for pre arrest bail of Nisar Ahmed Vohra, Abid Rahim and Muhammed Azeem (a11 of whom have applied to NAB for plea bargains) shall be determined' JU tr

I Y

CHIE E