Delay in allowing effect to court orders tantamount to maladministration: FTO

LAHORE: The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has declared that a delay in allowing effect to the higher court orders by the tax department is tantamount to maladministration as taxpayers suffer hardship due to an indifferent attitude of the department.

The declaration was made in response to a complaint filed by a taxpayer against non-issuance of refund. According to the complaint, the department initiated statutory proceedings during the pendency of refund application and an ex-parte order was passed against him.

The order was challenged before the commissioner appeals who upheld the additional commissioner’s order and the department adjusted refund amount without his consent and also recovered certain amount.

The complainant filed an appeal before the appellate tribunal, which vacated the order of two authorities below and remanded the matter to additional commissioner for decision afresh. The department, instead, preferred to file a reference before the high court that was dismissed.

The complainant approached the department to give effect to the order passed by the tribunal but failed to get any response. The complainant made several visits to the concerned tax authorities but nothing happened despite clear directions from the higher fora. Meanwhile, the complainant also made written requests through a series of letters and reminders but all in vain.

When the FTO referred the matter to Secretary Revenue Division, the department contended that the concerned tax authority has taken up the matter for de novo proceedings and refund cannot be issued until the completion of the proceedings.

It was also pointed out in the reply that the tax demand was created by the audit range of the regional tax office but the case was transferred to the zone while the direction was passed by the higher forum. Therefore, an extension was sought from the office of the FTO of 15 days for obtaining the court order by the zone.

The FTO noted that an inattention to court orders was attributes to frequent change in jurisdiction within the concerned RTO and posting/transfer of officers. The department has not only failed to give effect to court orders within prescribed time but also failed to respond to multiple letters and reminders by the complainant.

Accordingly, the department committed maladministration by neglecting, in attending and delaying discharge of duties and responsibilities. It further pointed out that the department’s stance that court order was not received it was not vindicated from the record. The taxpayer/complainant has suffers hardship due to indifferent attitude of the department.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023