The Federal Board of Revenue has yet to implement the order passed by Lahore High Court (LHC) wherein it ruled that the recommendations of Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee (ADRC) constituted under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and Sales Tax Act, 1990, are not secret under Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002 (FOI) and right of individual privacy has no application to the proceedings of the ADRC.
It is learnt that a petitioner had challenged the FBR denial to provide information relating to decision/recommendation issued by the ADRC. The LHC ruled that citizens have been granted a right to access to official/public record and that an applicant (requester) need not provide any reason for seeking such record. In fact, it is a complete, self-contained, exhaustive code in regard to a person's right to access to information/record of public bodies.
The application by the petitioner was not responded to by the Board contrary to the command of the FOI Ordinance, which prompted him to approach the Tax Ombudsman. The Board instead of complying with the direction of Ombudsman rushed to the President to get its decision set aside even though the President had no authority to entertain the said representation. The Board and its Chairman did not pass any order on the petitioner's application and the President did not furnish any reasons for claiming Section 8 exclusion on the recommendations given by the ADRC. The very purpose for which the FOI Ordinance was promulgated was thus defeated by the Board and the President and that too without application of mind and, it appears, for improper motives. The respondents are accordingly directed to forthwith provide the requisite information/documents to the petitioner, the LHC ordered.
The LHC order further states, "Alternate dispute resolution mechanism as the name implies is a system for resolving the disputes between the parties out of the court, which system operates alongside the normal adjudicatory mechanisms and thus cannot be allowed to be shrouded in mystery. As the matter pertains to payment of taxes etc, which has been taken outside the normal adjudicatory mechanisms by virtue of the ADRC, it is of utmost importance. Accordingly, the general public has an interest and a right to know about the same.
Under the scheme of Sales Tax Act and Income Tax Ordinance, finality is attached to the opinion rendered by the ADRC as upon its submission to the Board the role of the ADRC comes to an end. The afore-mentioned enactments do not envisage any further act on the part of the ADRC after rendering its opinion to the Board. The proceedings of the ADRC and its recommendation, though not binding on the Board, have no nexus with the policy making or the kind of policy bases. The recommendations of the ADRC, which are made under a statutory arrangement, are not covered by the exclusion contained in section 8 (c) of the FOI Ordinance. Firstly, in order for a matter to be referred to the ADRC it has to be pending before the Appellate Authority, which essentially means that the matter is under litigation between the Revenue and the tax payer and pending before an adjudicatory forum. The record of such litigation can by no stretch be termed as private record. Secondly, the alternate dispute resolution mechanism as the name implies is a system for resolving the disputes between the parties out of the court, which system operates alongside the normal adjudicatory mechanisms and thus cannot be allowed to be shrouded in mystery, the LHC ordered.
Comments
Comments are closed.