ISLAMABAD: Senior tax experts have questioned whether Inland Revenue officials can threaten severe consequences to advisors of corporate taxpayers pleading cases in courts.
They said such an incident has been taken place in Islamabad when Corporate Tax Office (CTO), Islamabad of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has submitted personalised comments against a tax lawyer before the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) on a case relating to an oil company. The tax lawyer has made some very serious allegations against the conduct of tax officials, but the tax officials also strongly responded to the allegations of the tax officials.
When contacted for comments, noted tax expert Dr Ikramul Haq told Business Recorder that the FBR officials must follow the instructions of the FBR under Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, which are binding on the FBR. Despite allegations of tax lawyer, the field formations cannot be personalized with the tax advisers, who were pleading their cases before the courts. Tax officials must not violate the code of conduct and binding circulars of the FBR, Haq said.
Tax experts accuse IR officials of misusing power
He stated that both the complainant lawyer, as well as, tax officials must be very careful while writing comments before courts.
How the supervisory official or the concerned Chief Commissioner vetted such personalized comments before the FTO. It is the responsibly of the supervisory official to read all comments before submitting before the courts, Dr Ikram said.
The pubic officials should not response in such a manner even if the complainant has made allegations of corruption or maladministration. Tax officials should submit comments on merit based on legal justifications, Dr Ikram added.
According to the official response of the tax officials, the lawyer’s allegations were unwarranted and reflected a lack of understanding, claiming such remarks undermined the integrity and tireless efforts of the tax institution. It further cautioned that irresponsible blame-shifting without proof could lead to serious consequences for the lawyer, Waheed Shahzad Butt, Advocate.
The CTO states before FTO: “The assertion that recovery has been made illegally under Section 48 is factually incorrect. No coercive recovery has been undertaken. The action in question is a lawful refund adjustment. Accusing an officer of government of Pakistan just in a few fancy lines can result in legal action against the lawyer which he seems to have forgotten. If learned advocate considers the recovery to be illegal, the appropriate course of action would be to approach the appellate forum rather than lodging a complaint with the FTO.
Such unwarranted allegations not only show a lack of understanding but also undermine the integrity and tireless efforts of the institution. Irresponsible blame shifting will not overshadow the facts without any proof of blaming which can lead to severe consequences for the lawyer, CTO added.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.