The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) is facing renewed scrutiny after its Inland Revenue (Operations) Wing failed to comply with a lawful order issued by the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) in a case involving a corporate taxpayer. The incident has sparked concerns about compliance, transparency, and respect for oversight within the tax administration.
According to the Ombudsman’s findings, the Corporate Tax Office (CTO) Islamabad did not submit the required para-wise response to the allegations made by the complainant. This failure occurred despite clear legal requirements under Section 10(4) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000, read with Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act (FOIRA), 2013.
The FTO observed that the department ignored not only the law but also specific circulars issued by the FBR itself, which instruct field offices to file detailed, point-by-point replies in proceedings before the Ombudsman. Rather than responding to the substance of the complaint, the department merely stated that the refund claim was “under process,” without addressing any of the issues raised.
In its order, the Ombudsman described the department’s conduct as careless and evasive, noting that such behavior amounted to neglect, lack of diligence, and a willful disregard of statutory responsibilities and binding instructions. The FTO concluded that the lapse constituted maladministration and undermined the effectiveness of the oversight process.
Taking serious notice of the matter, the FTO referred the case to the Member Inland Revenue (Operations), FBR, recommending a personal review of the conduct of the concerned officers and the initiation of disciplinary action where warranted.
Waheed Shahzad Butt, Advocate for the complainant, described the episode as deeply concerning for the rule of law. He emphasized that when tax authorities fail to honor oversight mechanisms, it weakens taxpayer confidence and erodes institutional accountability. He further noted that the failure to submit para-wise comments is not a minor procedural oversight but a direct violation of the law, often used to delay relief and frustrate justice.
The case serves as a reminder of the need for stronger enforcement of accountability within tax institutions and the importance of ensuring that legal directives from oversight bodies are respected in both letter and spirit.