The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) continues to withhold crucial information regarding cases handled by its Alternative Dispute Resolution Committees (ADRCs), despite repeated legal efforts to bring these matters into the public domain. This persistent secrecy has raised alarm among legal experts, tax professionals, and transparency advocates, prompting an ongoing inquiry by the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC).
At the center of the controversy is the FBR’s refusal to share documents and decisions of the ADRCs, which allegedly led to multi-billion-rupee losses to the national exchequer. These losses are said to have occurred due to a questionable interpretation of tax laws, granting undue benefits to certain taxpayers. As the matter gains prominence, the PIC is now tasked with evaluating whether institutional confidentiality, as cited by the FBR under Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, can override public interest and fiscal transparency.
Tax expert Waheed Shahzad Butt, who has been at the forefront of pushing for transparency, argues that the FBR’s actions not only contradict legal precedents but also violate the essence of the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017. According to Butt, despite rulings and directions from various judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, including the Federal Tax Ombudsman, the President of Pakistan, and the Lahore High Court, the FBR has refused to disclose ADRC decisions.
The Lahore High Court had specifically instructed the FBR to provide Butt with the details of ADRC orders through the proper legal procedure. However, the FBR has instead invoked Section 216 of the tax ordinance and the exclusion clauses of the Right of Access to Information Act, claiming that the data is classified as “secret and confidential.”
Butt emphasizes that the public has a constitutional right to know how public officials perform their duties, particularly when those decisions have significant financial consequences. “Shielding ADRC decisions under a legal veil,” he remarked, “undermines both transparency and fiscal justice in Pakistan.”
The FBR’s defense rests on a strict interpretation of Section 216, which bars public servants from disclosing taxpayer information unless specific conditions are met. While this section is designed to protect taxpayer privacy, critics argue that it should not be used to cover up decisions that allegedly favor influential taxpayers at the cost of national revenue.
Experts argue that the public interest in this case is undeniable. If tax laws have been misapplied and state revenue compromised, then transparency becomes not only necessary but legally and morally imperative. The concern among stakeholders is that ADRCs, operating under FBR’s supervision, might have selectively misinterpreted tax provisions to grant illegitimate relief to specific taxpayers.
This allegation, if true, raises serious questions about the integrity of the tax dispute resolution process, and whether the ADRC mechanism is being misused to benefit a few at the expense of the many.
The Pakistan Information Commission is now reviewing whether the FBR’s interpretation of Section 216 is valid when weighed against the Right of Access to Information Act and the broader public interest. The PIC has the authority to decide if the claimed confidentiality can justifiably prevent disclosure in a matter that impacts national finances and institutional trust.
This is not the first time FBR has faced criticism for a lack of transparency. However, the refusal to share ADRC decisions, even after directives from courts and other oversight institutions, highlights the scale of institutional resistance to accountability.
The controversy has once again ignited the debate on transparency in public administration. As Waheed Shahzad Butt aptly puts it, “Access to information is a sine qua non of constitutional democracy. The more secretive a public institution becomes, the more room it leaves for corruption and maladministration.”
The implications of this case extend far beyond tax administration. It tests Pakistan’s commitment to good governance, legal accountability, and public trust in state institutions. The outcome of PIC’s adjudication will be closely watched not only by tax professionals but also by civil society organizations and the general public.
If the Commission rules in favor of disclosure, it could set a vital precedent for transparency in all forms of public decision-making involving the misuse of discretionary powers.
