It is inappropriate to comment on the competence of the to Parliament :Justice Mansoor Ali Shah

Lahore: It is inappropriate and discourteous to assume that the Parliament was misled by the Executive (“Federal Board Revenue”).Justice Mansoor Ali Shah on Saturday while dismissing a petition filed in the Lahore High Court against the order of the President of Pakistan observed that it was not appropriate for the Federal Tax Ombudsman to comment on the wisdom and competence of the Parliament.  “The fact that the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman and the jurisdiction enjoyed by the Ombudsman is a creation of the law enacted by the Parliament escaped the attention of the Federal Tax Ombudsman”, observed Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.

According to details, an advocate WaheedShehzad Butt,had filed a complaint before the Federal Tax Ombudsman in public interest against the “systemic maladministration’ involving discriminatory, unreasonable and unfair treatment to certain “salaried individuals” falling under Clause (1A), Division-I, First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (“ITO”) through the Finance Act, 2012(“Act”).  The complainant alleged that there was serious anomaly in the tax slabs 4, 5 and 6 for the “salaried individuals” as amended through the Act.  The Federal Tax Ombudsman haddirected the respondent FBR to take urgent steps to address the glaring anomalies in tax and report compliance within 30 days.

The FBR preferred a representation against the aforesaid order before the President of Pakistan who accepted the representation on the ground that the Federal Tax Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter under section 9(1) of FTO Ordinance. Petitioner challenged the decisionof the President before Lahore High Court that the order of President is without lawful authority but Justice Mansoor upheld the order of the President.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah maintained in his order that the allegation that Revenue Division did not properly assist the Parliament, which resulted in insertion of Clause (1A) in Division I, Part I of the First Schedule to the ITO through Finance Act, 2012 is misconceived. The assistance rendered by the Revenue Division, if any, is immaterial once the suggestions and summaries of the Revenue Division stood incorporated into an Act of the Parliament and the assistance rendered by the Revenue Division resulting in a Finance Act does not constitute maladministration.

“It is also noticed with surprise and regret that Federal Tax Ombudsman has recorded in his findings that the Parliament was not properly assisted by the Federal Board of Revenue.Federal Tax Ombudsman enjoys a limited special jurisdiction which can be invoked by an aggrieved person.  A complaint filed in “public interest” does not meet the requirement of an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman extends to maladministration on the part of Revenue Division or the Tax Employees while in the present case the matter under challenge is an Act of the Parliament and therefore the subject matter of the complaint falls outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah concluded.