ISLAMABAD: Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) that it is high time for FBR and its legal Division to issue instructions as well as educate/ train the concerned Officers in the adjudication and Appellate hierarchy, to pass well-reasoned orders under General Clause Act, 1897.
According to an order issued by the SHC, through these Reference Applications filed under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, (“Ordinance”) the Applicant has impugned Order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-VI), Karachi, under Section 129(1) ibid proposing various questions of law.
The FBR should look into this issue and issue instructions as well as educate/ train the concerned Officers to pass well-reasoned orders in line with Section 24A of the General Clause Act, 1897 and the law settled by the Courts as above, after taking into consideration all factual as well as legal aspects of a case so that the High Court(s) can answer the proposed questions of law and facts in an apt manner while exercising its Reference jurisdiction under section 133 of the Ordinance.
Tax refund cases: LHC bars FIA from taking steps against FBR officers
The SHC stated that the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer are hereby set-aside; these Reference Applications are allowed; and the matter stands remanded to the Original Authority, who shall decide the same with a reasoned and a speaking order, after attending all issues so raised by the Applicant in accordance with law and with an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant.
The Counsel for the Department, under instructions submitted that the matter may be remanded to the concerned Authority for deciding the same afresh; however, before such request could be examined, it has been noticed that the assessing officer as well the Commissioner (Appeals), both have failed to pass an appropriate reasoned order.
It appears that the Applicant was confronted with a show cause notice under Section 122(9) of the Ordinance that 1% tax is payable as „turnover tax? on the product in question, whereas Applicant’s case is that the rate of said tax should be 0.2% as the product in question falls within „Fast Moving Consumer Goods?.
The Applicant furnished a detailed reply to the said notice; however, the Assessing Officer did not bother to give any reasoning in passing an adverse order against the Applicant.
SHC order stated that it will not be out of place to mention that pursuant to the Finance Amendment Act, 2024 and thereafter through Finance Amendment Act, 2024 such orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are now assailable by way of Reference Application under Section 133 of the Ordinance before this Court to consider not only a question of law, but so also questions of fact.
However, we are compelled to observe that this, resultantly, has only burdened the High Court(s) with more and more tax matters. The Officers of the Department, including the Commissioner (Appeals), as a matter of routine are passing orders in a slipshod manner without even discussing the law or facts of a particular case.
Instead, the entire response/ grounds are reproduced in their orders and then the contention is rejected by way of compendious/ brief orders.
In the instant matter both the officers below have failed to give any reasoning; nor have determined any questions of law or even facts, based on which this Court can answer the proposed questions. This nullifies the idea of providing a direct Reference before this Court against orders of Commissioner (Appeals) as instead of reducing litigation; it has increased the pendency of tax matters.
Such orders are being remanded to the assessing officers starting a fresh round of cumbersome proceedings and is not helping the Court or the litigants, including the tax department, in any manner for swift disposal of like matters, SHC order added.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments