Alternative Dispute Resolution

2025 PTD 614 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.134A(1)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionAlternative Dispute ResolutionCommittee not establishedEffect

Petitioner / taxpayer company in its earlier petition was directed by High Court to get its dispute settled through Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee

Authorities did not establish Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and dispute of petitioner / taxpayer company was not decided within the period fixed by High Court in earlier petition

Effect

High Court directed Federal Government to establish necessary Committee of Alternative Dispute Resolution as per provision of S. 134A(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, on immediate basis so that litigants would not suffer and tendency of overburdening Court with unnecessary litigation was curtailed

High Court restrained the authorities from adopting coercive measures against petitioner / taxpayer company as Committee of Alternative Dispute Resolution had not been established and there was no forum to get dispute resolved by way of mediation

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2025 MLD 105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O.IX-BDispute between close family membersAlternative Dispute ResolutionApplicability

Parties were real bothers having joint business who approached the Court with regard to certain disputes that had arisen in connection with their business matters

High Court referred the matter to Mediator for dispute resolution

Mediation in the first instance should be the preferred mode of resolution and applies, a fortiori, to cases which involve wrangling between close family members

Such method has many obvious benefits least of all to save cost, business and personal relations

If taken under scrupulous attention of High Court and by a respectable Mediatory, such process is likely to succeed in its purpose

High Court directed the parties to present their briefs and skeleton arguments to the Mediator and exchange copies in advance

Contents of petitions and its replies would serve as briefs on behalf of the parties

High Court left procedure of mediation to be determined by Mediator so appointed who would proceed expeditiously in the matter given the sensitivity of the situation

High Court expected from the parties to approach process of mediation with fairness and an eye on the future of their company which, taken together, had given them enormous benefits over their working lifetimes

Mediator was appointed accordingly.

2013 PTD 933 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.47A (4)Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)(ii)Alternative dispute resolution

Initiation of disciplinary proceedings was recommended by the Federal Tax Ombudsman against members of Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee

Revenue contended that disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against the member of the committee and committee could be constituted afresh to decide the matter after thorough deliberation of the issues

Validity

Orders-in-Original was passed on 27-5-2007 and Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee formed on 18-11-2008

Report of Committee was given to the Federal Board of Revenue on 30-9-2009 i.e. after 323 days instead of the stipulated 90 days

Federal Board of Revenue was required to dissolve the Committee for failure to submit its report within the prescribed period, it failed to do so

Even after receipt of report the Federal Board of Revenue was required to reconstitute a fresh Committee within 90 days

Instead the Committee was constituted on 15-10-2012; this was done with a delay of over three years

Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee had still to give its fresh recommendations, in the meanwhile the Appellate Tribunal had decided the matter, separately referred to it

Complainant may be satisfied at this point of time but the neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, inefficiency and ineptitude in the discharge of duties and responsibilities was manifest at various levels of tax officials during the complete chain of events

Method devised for the facility of the taxpayer was converted into a torture rack moving inch by inch

No ground existed that could be urged for the review of the decision

Maladministration at all levels, that were entrusted with the provision of due process, expeditious disposal and relief to a taxpayer, was manifest

Federal Board of Revenue need to address the matter as a systemic issue

Apart from setting its own house in order, if any Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee members were not inclined to follow the law, they should not be restored for such work

Case was closed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.

2013 PTD 929 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.47A(4)Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)(ii)Alternative dispute resolution

Federal Board of Revenue stated that committee had not furnished its recommendations within the stipulated period of 90 days as provided under S.47A(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, a fresh Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee was in the process of constitution and an intimation in this regard would be communicated to the complainant in due course

Validity

It was imperative for the Committee to give its recommendations within 90 days

Federal Board of Revenue on 8-12-2009 asked the same Committee to re-examine certain issues

Committee submitted its fresh recommendations on 16-3-2011 i.e. a year and ninety eight days after the second reference

Board should have called for appropriate disciplinary action against the members of the Committee, particularly the departmental member, but there was nothing on record to show that the Federal Board of Revenue took necessary steps to address the issue, nor did the Federal Board of Revenue appear to have taken any action against the members of the Committee for submitting a report containing recommendations which according to the Commissioner, were not based on facts and were contrary to law

Federal Board of Revenue further failed to pass appropriate orders within 45 days of receipt of the final recommendations

Instead, after keeping the file for more than 11 months, the Federal Board of Revenue called for a report from the Chief Commissioner vide letter dated 7-2-2012

Federal Board of Revenue manifestly violated the provisions of S.47A(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 by not passing orders within the mandatory period of 45 days of receipt of the recommendations

Inordinate delay in passing order on the unanimous recommendations dated 16-3-2011 of the Committee had been established which was tantamount to maladministration

Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Federal Board of Revenue to pass orders, as per law, on the recommendations of the Committee under subsection (4) of S.47A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, if the Federal Board of Revenue was of the opinion that recommendations of Committee were not based on facts and were contrary to law, then appropriate disciplinary action must be initiated against members of the Committee.

2012 PLD 388 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

MediationConfidentiality of mediation proceedingsScopeRecord of mediation exercise was strictly confidential, and was not to even be produced before the court

In rare and exceptional circumstances, record of mediation may be produced before the court, but only for the perusal of the court itself and not by any other party.

2012 PLD 388 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Mediation

Scope and object stated.