ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday suspended the notification for the constitution of a high-powered Implementation and Asset Distribution Committee (I&ADC) for restructuring the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
A single bench of Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard the petition of Ali Saleh Hayat Kalyar, a deputy commissioner of the FBR.
The petitioner moved the court through advocate Syed Hamid Ali Shah and cited the Federation of Pakistan through secretary Cabinet Division, secretary Ministry of Finance, secretary Ministry of Law and Ardsher Salem Tariq, secretary Task Force on Tax and FBR Reforms as respondents.
FBR restructuring: Body formed for critical tasks
After hearing the arguments of the counsel, the court suspended the notification for the constitution of a I&ADC to undertake all required actions for the restructuring of the FBR. Besides this, the IHC bench also issued notices to the respondents and sought a report on this matter.
Kalyar adopted the stance in the petition that the restructuring of the FBR is not the mandate of the caretaker government and the caretaker government should be prevented from restructuring the FBR.
The petitioner’s lawyer said that the committee was formed despite the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has stopped it under the Election Act 2017.
He stated that the FBR’s role in delegated legislation involves implementing fiscal policies within the framework established by primary legislation, ensuring alignment with legislative intent, and adhering to principles set forth by the judiciary to maintain legality, reasonableness, and constitutional compliance.
He prayed to the court to declare that the restructuring and digitalization plan of the FBR initiated by the caretaker government, as approved by the federal cabinet, as unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, and without lawful authority.
He also requested the court to declare that the caretaker government has no power or authority to make any policy decision or long-term planning then it has no power to take any initial or preliminary step in that regard. “All steps taken for restructuring of FBR be declared as nonest, nonexistent and thus rendering it to have no legal effect whatsoever,” maintained the petitioner.
He added, “The impugned restructuring being in departure from the statutory provisions and also contrary the constitutional provisions as well in conflict with fundamental rights cannot survive on the touchstone of Articles 2-A, 3, 4, 9, 18, 23, 24 and 25 of the Constitution, the same may please be declared as invalid and with no legal effect.”
The petitioner’s counsel prayed to the court to issue appropriate directions to the respondents, specifically the respondents No 1 and 2, that: “to cease the implementation of the said restructuring plan until the matter is adjudicated upon by this Honorable Court.”
He further requested to provide full disclosure and justification for the restructuring plan, including details of legal amendments, administrative interventions, and any potential long-term implications on fiscal policy and governance.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.