ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) held that Pakistan’s fiscal statutes impose an express, overriding, and comprehensive bar on the disclosure of taxpayer proceedings, which cannot be diluted through the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, or Article 19-A of the Constitution.
A single-judge bench of Justice Khalid Soomro, on Tuesday, after hearing Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) constitutional petitions, suspended the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC) orders dated December 3, 2025, and January 8, 2026, and issued notices to the respondents.
Hafiz Ihsaan Ahmad Khokhar, representing the FBR Chairman, argued that the PIC had acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction by issuing directions which conflicted with special fiscal laws enacted by Parliament to safeguard taxpayer confidentiality.
READ MORE: FBR says has not breached financial privacy of taxpayers
He submitted that Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – particularly after its strengthening through the Finance Act, 2022 – creates an absolute statutory prohibition on the disclosure of any information relating to a taxpayer’s assessment, adjudication, recovery, investigation or ancillary proceedings. The provision, he argued, contains a non-obstante clause and expressly overrides all other laws, including the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.
Khokhar explained that this statutory confidentiality is neither incidental nor discretionary, but reflects a deliberate legislative choice to insulate fiscal proceedings from public disclosure. Such protection, he argued, is essential to preserve taxpayer privacy, maintain confidence in the tax system, and prevent the misuse of sensitive fiscal data.
He pointed out that Section 56-B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, Section 47-B of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, and Section 155-H of the Customs Act, 1969 – read with Rule 124 of the Customs Rules, 1969 –employ materially identical language. These provisions collectively grant complete immunity from disclosure to all records and proceedings relating to assessment, adjudication, investigation, enforcement and recovery against a taxpayer.
The counsel informed that private respondents had repeatedly sought, under the Right of Access to Information Act, copies of recovery notices issued under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance by the Regional Tax Office along with lists identifying taxpayers against whom proceedings were initiated, continued or withdrawn over a period of nearly fifteen years.
The information sought also included assessment and adjudication records of taxpayers relating to time-barred orders and matters pending or decided before various appellate and adjudicatory forums. The FBR declined the request on the ground that the information sought was inseparably linked with protected fiscal proceedings and taxpayer identities and was expressly immune from disclosure under the Income Tax Ordinance, the Sales Tax Act, the Federal Excise Act, and the Customs Act.
The PIC partly accepted that information under the Income Tax Ordinance could not be disclosed due to the statutory bar contained in Section 216, it nonetheless directed the FBR to disclose taxpayer identities and related information under other fiscal laws and even in respect of proceedings under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
Khokar further stated that the impugned PIC orders would also expose FBR officers to criminal prosecution under Section 198 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. He explained that the provision criminalises unauthorised disclosure of confidential taxpayer information by any public servant and prescribes punishment which may extend to imprisonment for a term of up to three years, in addition to a fine.
The counsel argued that the PIC orders effectively compel public officials to commit a statutory offence, placing them in an impossible position—either to violate binding fiscal law and face criminal consequences, or to face coercive action by the Commission. Such a legal paradox, he submitted, cannot be sustained in law.
He submitted that Article 19-A of the Constitution does not override fiscal secrecy where Parliament has imposed clear and reasonable restrictions by law. He argued that Article 19-A itself is expressly subject to “reasonable restrictions imposed by law,” and that fiscal confidentiality provisions constitute such restrictions.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026