Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman

2025 PTD 1661 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 10(1)Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act (XIV of 2013), S. 9(1)EPD Circular No.11 of 2022 dated 05.07.2022 issued by State Bank of PakistanPakistan Customs Tariff, Chapts. 84 & 85Procedure prescribed for Electronic Import Form, matter ofJurisdiction of Federal Tax OmbudsmanScope

Complaints were filed regarding procedure prescribed for Electronic Import Form (EIF) pre-approval by the State Bank of Pakistan, vide EPD Circular No.11 of 2022 dated 05.07.2022

Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) found that, present complaints related to State Bank of Pakistan's Circular dated 05.07.2022, not directly related to FBR, therefore, did not fall within jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. FTO

However, issue involved tax revenues mobilization, national foreign exchange reserves, trade balance, susceptibility of national exports and running of local industry, therefore, required immediate collective wisdom of FBR, State Bank of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Finance and Economic Coordination Committee of the Cabinet, in consultation with FPCCI, Chambers of Commerce and Industry and other stakeholders, to look for sustainable answers/ resolution

Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the FBR (i) forward findings of this forum / FTO to all stakeholders for reflection and further processing/fine tuning for further action; (ii) invite input from FPCCI, Chambers of Commerce and Industry and other stakeholders recommendations on merit and process; (iii) propose immediate possible holding of meeting of ECC of Cabinet once input provided by business stakeholders was evaluated/processed by stakeholders Departments/Ministries, as well; and (iv) this forum / FTO may also be kept abreast about outcome of above measures/steps taken

Complaints were disposed of accordingly.

2016 PTD 2037 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss 175 & 239DFederal Ombudsmen Institutional Reform Act (XIV of 2013) S. 11Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3), 5 & 10Power to enter and search premises under S.175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001Jurisdiction of Federal Tax OmbudsmanMaladministrationTemporary injunction, grant ofScope

Contention of complainant, inter alia was that the raid conducted by Department was without jurisdiction and did not comply with provisions of S.175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the same was tantamount to maladministration

Validity

Only show-cause notice had been issued to the complainant and no order had been passed by the Department's officers and complainant had submitted explanation with material facts before concerned officers to enable them to arrive at some conclusion

Raid, if properly carried out under provisions of S.175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could not be termed unlawful and tax under S.236D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was to be paid once and at a fixed rate for the relevant period whether business of the raided premises belonged to one person or two different persons

Show cause notice in the present case had detailed figures of apparent tax evasion for the relevant period

Substance had to take precedence over technicalities and complainant had to refute allegations properly to support his case and could not challenge the issuance of the show-cause notice

Complainant's plea for grant of temporary injunction under S. 11 of Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reform Act, 2013 was not valid as a temporary injunction under said provision was against operation of an impugned order or decision and not against proceedings, as in the present case

Federal Tax Ombudsman, however, observed that Department was required to consider the matter sympathetically and settle proceedings in a transparent way after affording fair opportunity of hearing to complainant

No case of maladministration was made out and the proceedings were accordingly closed

Complaint was dismissed, accordingly.

2008 PTD 1061 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 9Merits of impugned decision/order-Interference withJurisdiction of Federal Tax OmbudsmanScope

Ombudsman as a general rule would not interfere with merits of a decision, though unmeritorious but without maladministration in exercise of discretion vested in authority

Appealable order or decision, if tainted with maladministration, could be questioned by Ombudsman.

2008 PTD 1061 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(3) & 9Jurisdiction of Federal Tax OmbudsmanScope

Every allegation concerning "maladministration" would call for investigation to determine its truth by invoking jurisdiction of Ombudsman.

2008 PTD 797 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(3) & 9Jurisdiction of Federal Tax OmbudsmanScope

Where impugned action was arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice or in excess of authority or result of arbitrary exercise of power without observing pre-condition, then Ombudsman would have jurisdiction

Ombudsman would have jurisdiction to investigate allegation of complaint, where maladministration was proved.

2008 PTD 447 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(3) & 9Jurisdiction of Federal Tax OmbudsmanScope

Ombudsman, as a general rule, would not interfere with merits of a decision, though unmeritorious, but free of maladministration

Order/ decision/process tainted with maladministration could justifiably be questioned by Ombudsman, even if law provided appeal.