ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has persistently refused to share information about cases decided by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committees (ADRCs) and matter is still pending before the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC).
The Pakistan Information Commission will now evaluate the legitimacy and scope of FBR’s secrecy claim under section 216 (Disclosure of information by a public servant) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 whether public interest outweighs institutional confidentiality.
According to a tax expert, despite the lapse of considerable time and extensive legal scrutiny, critical information relating to a multi-billion-rupee loss to the national exchequer, allegedly caused through misinterpretation of tax laws by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committees (ADRCs) of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), remains veiled in secrecy and is currently pending before the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC).
‘Pakistan needs integrated dry port strategy to decentralise economic activity’
When contacted, tax expert said that controversy centres on claims that the ADRCs, operating under the administrative umbrella of FBR, extended inadmissible tax benefits to select taxpayers by wrongly applying tax provisions, resulting in a substantial financial blow to the state. However, efforts by tax lawyer Waheed Shahzad Butt to bring the full details into the public domain continue to face institutional resistance.
Waheed Butt informed that matter has already been deliberated before the Federal Tax Ombudsman, the President of Pakistan, and both Single and Division Benches of the Lahore High Court. Despite these multiple rounds of judicial and quasi-judicial engagement, the core information sought by whistleblowers and public interest petitioners remains withheld.
At the heart of FBR’s defence lies its invocation of Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which the tax authority contends protects such data as “secret and confidential,” thereby exempting it from public disclosure, even when broader national accountability is at stake: Waheed added.
The Pakistan Information Commission is now tasked with evaluating the legitimacy and scope of FBR’s secrecy claim under Section 216, and whether public interest outweighs institutional confidentiality.
Shielding questionable ADRC decisions behind a legal cloak contradicts the principles of transparency and fiscal justice. As the matter awaits final adjudication by PIC, eyes remain fixed on whether the truth behind the alleged revenue compromise will finally come to light or remain buried under procedural secrecy.
Earlier FBR has refused to disclose information related to orders passed by the ADRC raises serious questions about transparency and accountability in tax machinery. Order has been passed by the FBR on the basis of directions issued by LHC to provide orders passed by the FBR on the recommendations of the ADRCs to the applicant Advocate Waheed Shahzad Butt through the process provided under Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.
Interestingly, the FBR has also invoked the exclusion clause of the Right of Access to Information Act 2017, which allows certain information to be withheld from the public. The refusal to provide information has sparked concerns among tax experts and lawyers, who argue that the ADRC orders have a significant impact on taxpayers and the economy as a whole, Waheed Butt added.
Access to information is a sine qua non of constitutional democracy. The public has a right to know how public functionaries do their job. The responsibility of public functionaries to disclose what they do and how they do works against both corruption and highhandedness, Waheed added.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.