Supreme Court Advocate Serves Rs. 100 Million Advocate Legal Notice to IRS
A significant legal controversy has erupted. The Inland Revenue Service Officers Association (IRSOA) issued a press release, which a Supreme Court advocate has now formally challenged. This comprehensive legal notice alleges defamation, false imputation, and misuse of institutional authority. Sources reveal that the notice falsely portrayed the advocate as initiating “malicious or retaliatory actions” and engaging in “misuse of criminal proceedings.” Consequently, this action seeks to protect professional integrity.
The notice firmly asserts that these allegations are inherently defamatory and utterly baseless. They are designed to malign the professional integrity, reputation, and bona fide legal conduct of the Supreme Court advocate. Importantly, this advocate is renowned for public interest litigation, whistleblowing against maladministration, and upholding taxpayers’ and lawyers’ rights.
Lahore Tax Bar Supports Advocate Legal Notice
The Lahore Tax Bar Association, a prominent body of tax professionals established in 1947, has publicly endorsed the aggrieved advocate’s stance. This support came through formal resolutions. Furthermore, the association condemned the alleged retaliatory conduct by revenue authorities. It demanded strict action under the Lawyers Welfare and Protection Act, 2023.
These resolutions were specifically addressed to the Chairman of the Federal Board of Revenue, the Punjab Bar Council, and the Punjab Inspector General of Police. Therefore, they serve as independent validation of the legitimacy behind the legal actions taken by the advocate.
Demands and Implications of the Notice
The legal notice demands several key actions. Firstly, it calls for the immediate withdrawal and retraction of the impugned press release. Secondly, it requires an unconditional public apology with equal prominence. Additionally, a written cease-and-desist undertaking is sought. Finally, the notice demands compensatory damages of Rs. 100 million for reputational harm, mental anguish, and professional loss.
This episode raises profound questions regarding the role of official associations when issuing public statements. Specifically, it questions attributing motives to lawyers for exercising lawful remedies. Such conduct also challenges constitutional guarantees, professional ethics, and the supremacy of the judicial process. Consequently, the matter is expected to have far-reaching implications for institutional accountability, the independence of the legal profession, and the limits of public commentary by state-linked bodies on pending judicial proceedings.
