The Federal Board of Revenue has yet to implement the orders of the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) Dr Muhammad Shoaib Suddle to provide 'orders' passed by the FBR on the recommendations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committees (ADRCs) to the applicant.
Tax experts told Business Recorder here on Saturday that the FBR was bound to give ADRC orders within 21 days period starting from January 11, 2013. The deadline of 21 days has been expired, but copies of ADRC order has not been provided by the FBR to the applicant.
This is first of its kind of order issued by the FTO with direction to the FBR to provide 'orders' passed by FBR on the recommendations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committees (ADRCs), under Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002 (FIO) as guaranteed by Article 19-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, which has not been implemented by the FBR within time allowed by the FTO. The law provides authoritative powers to the FTO to issue order of binding nature under section 19(2) of FIO.
Sources said that FTO has ruled out that it is a fundamental right of every citizen to seek information which would enable him to evaluate the ADRC's operational effectiveness as an alternative dispute resolution forum. Following specific intervention order was issued by the FTO Dr Suddle "In order to ensure that the public's right to seek access to information, as guaranteed by Article 19-A of the Constitution and section 3(1) of the FIO is not impaired, FBR is ordered to provide Requester with the requested information, in the format given by him, within 21 days from the date this order is received."
Sources further said that orders of the ADRCs commonly known as 'Out of Court-settlement' between the FBR and taxpayers on disputed tax related matters are not confidential and the FBR has no legal authority to deny this information to general public under Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002. In this regard, a Lahore-based tax lawyer Waheed Shahzad Butt of Tax Resolution Services Company has written a letter to the Chairman FBR, requesting him to provide ADRC orders in light of section 12 of the FIO read with Rule 4 of Freedom of Information Rules, 2004.
Tax expert has requested the Chairman FBR to provide recommendation issued by ADRCs under section 134A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; u/s 47A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, especially orders passed by Chairman on recommendations issued by ADRC. In response to application under section 12 of the FIO instead of providing the requisite information under the law, it was declined to provide it under section 8(g) of the FIO. FBR has termed it as a very sensitive issue and started consultation with its legal advisors for not providing copies of the ADRC orders to applicant. On refusal, tax lawyer has filed a complaint with the FTO under section 19 of the FIO.
Earlier on the complaint filed by Waheed Butt the FTO issued first of its kind order in the history of ADRC and Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002 on a complaint filed under section 19 of the FIO listed as C.No 1354/2012. The complaint filed by requester has been accepted by Dr Suddle and the FTO Office has issued an order in this regard. According to the FTO order, the complaint is filed u/s 19 of the Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002 against non-compliance with the provisions of Section 12 of the FIO, read with Rule 4 of Freedom of Information Rules, 2004. The requester filed an application under the FIO requesting that information relating to action taken by FBR on the recommendations of ADRC be made available to him. Specifically, the requester sought information including recommendation issued by Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee u/s 134A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, orders passed by FBR on recommendation issued by Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee u/s 134A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (either accepted or rejected), orders passed by Chairman on recommendation issued by Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee u/s 134A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, recommendations issued by Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee u/s 47A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, orders passed by FBR on recommendations issued by Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee u/s 47A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (either accepted or rejected), orders passed by Chairman on recommendation issued by Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee u/s 47A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.
FTO's order said that no statement, return/accounts or documents involving the 'personal privacy' of a taxpayer or records of any assessment proceedings have been requisitioned. The information requisitioned is not confidential and does not fall under the ambit of Section 8(g) of the FIO. The FBR stance is also in conflict with the Constitution and judgements of the superior judiciary. Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be altered or abridged, except as provided by the Constitution itself. Right to information guaranteed under Article 19-A of the Constitution is much broader and more assertive than the statutory right guaranteed under Section 3(1) of the FIO.
Access to information is a sine qua non of constitutional democracy. The public has a right to know how pubic functionaries do their job. The responsibility of public functionaries to disclose what they do and how they do works against both corruption and highhandedness. As a rule, information should be disclosed. Only as an exception, privilege could be claimed on justifiable grounds permissible under the law, the FTO maintained.
Comments
Comments are closed.