ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has ruled that the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has no jurisdiction to act against senior officials of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) on complaints of malpractices.

In his judgement announced on Monday, IHC Justice Babar Sattar also set aside an FTO notification challenged by FBR commissioners.

The notification — issued on April 14, 2021 — ordered an inspection of the office of the commissioner of FBR’s Inland Revenue wing in the exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance of 2000 on complaints of malpractice and corruption.

The FTO notification was challenged by FBR commissioners Abdul Waheed Khan, Zulfiqar Ahmed, Naeem Hassan and Shabana Mumtaz.

Justice Sattar sets aside FTO notification that ordered inspection of inland revenue commissioner’s office

Petitioners’ counsel Advocate Syed Ishfaq Hussain Naqvi argued before the court that under Section 9(1) of the FTO ordinance, in order to exercise inspection powers under Section 17 there must be a complaint by an aggrieved person which was to be investigated to redress the grievance of such person, to the extent that such grievance related to maladministration.

Given that the basis for exercising inspection powers were generic complaints, the matter did not fall within FTO’s jurisdiction, he argued.

Advocate Naqvi said corruption-related investigations fell within the domain of relevant investigation agencies, which did not include the federal tax ombudsman.

Earlier, the FTO through a letter constituted a team to inspect the office of FBR commissioners.

The FTO relied on Section 17 of the Estab­lishment of the Office of FTO Ordinance 2000 to carry out an inspection and ordered the FBR to nominate its officer of at least grade BS-20/21.

The impugned letter relied on Section 2(3)(i)(d) & (ii) of the FTO Ordinance and alleged that there were complaints of malpractice in the discharge of duties, falling within the ambit of maladministration under the FTO Ordinance.

Advocate Naqvi contended that the inspection team was not formed as per law or procedure as prescribed by the ordinance and FTO Investigation and Disposal of Complaints Regulations 2001, as it did not meet the basic requirement of providing copies of alleged complaints of malpractice with corrupt motives to Secretary Revenue Division and the accused officer as provided under Section 10 of the ordinance read with Regulation 10(5).

In relation to the alleged complaints of malpractice with corrupt motives in the discharge of duties amounting to maladministration, it is submitted that the FTO has failed to specify any act or omission of the petitioner that could possibly amount to malpractice with corrupt motives, amounting to maladministration.

The impugned letter only stated that complaints had been filed but did provide a copy of the alleged complaints or any other proof to show that the complaints had actually been filed, the petition said. It said the FTO did not have the power to order an inspection of the Office of the Petitioners, as it had not complied with the relevant procedure under the FTO ordinance and regulations.

Published in Dawn, March 8th, 2022