Islamabad:
A committee formed by the Supreme Court to resolve tax cases has recommended to establish a mechanism for the settlement of robust alternative disputes (ADR) within the Federal Board of Return and all provincial income services.
The Committee, including the Supreme Court registrar and experts in legal and fiscal matters, also suggested that ADR decisions be taken in connection with income authorities to prevent unnecessary disputes.
The government has expressed concern about the large number of cases linked to income in the process of court, involving billions of rupees. This deprives not only the government of critical income, but also adds to the back of the judiciary.
To alleviate the situation, chief judge Yahya Afridi chaired a meeting on November 7, 2024. It was revealed that 108,366 cases were pending in the country’s high lessons, involving 4,457 billion rupees.
In addition, approximately 6,000 income cases were pending before the Supreme Court, while 2,000 cases are not resolved in various courts and courts, where residence orders had obtained potential recovery of billions of rupes.
The objective of the November meeting, which was also assisted by officials of the Ministry of Finance and the FBR, was to draw up a complete strategy to accelerate the resolution of affairs related to revenues on judicial forums.
The meeting trained a committee, the tax expert Imotiaz Ahmed Khan as a coordinator. He included the Supreme Court Registrar Saleem Khan, Asim Zulfiqar, Sher Shah Khan, Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, CEO of FBR, Law, and others.
The committee was responsible for examining the issue, identifying the problems and making recommendations. The committee was also responsible for suggesting appropriate solutions in the context of the situation in the country.
For Fuflill this mandate, the Committee has consulted the main stakeholders, including the FBR, the bar bar of the Supreme Court, the Punjab Tax Bar Association, the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry and other representatives of companies and industry.
Based on the contribution of stakeholders, the Committee recommended to establish a special ADR panel within the FBR to reduce disputes by mediation, conciliation and negotiation.
The committee also suggested that the FBR should not have the power to appeal to ADR decisions in court. He also proposed to set up an ADR unit within the Supreme Court to monitor ADR systems in FBR and other state institutions.
To reduce the burden of the judiciary, the Committee recommended the creation of special benches for income affairs before the Supreme Court and high lessons, the judges asked to quickly decide on affairs.
The committee said that a lot of time was lost in legal proceedings because cases of a similar nature are heard in different benches. Therefore, he said, all of these cases must be consolidated and presented before a single bench for uniform decisions.
He is underlined in the recommendations according to which income officials regularly deposit calls against judicial orders, even if they have a weak legal position for fear of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
This unnecessary culture of appeal exerts unnecessary pressure on the judicial system and increases legal spending on the State and taxpayers, said the committee in its recommendations.
To put an end to this trend, it continues, the authorities of the FBR and provincial revenue should be ordered not to file unnecessary calls, and disciplinary measures should be taken against the officers concerned, considering this violation as a lack of performance.
He also suggested rationalizing the appointment of officers in the relevant FBR appeal courts and the introduction of key performance indicators to assess the performance of these officers.
The committee also made recommendations concerning the issuance of stays in the tax issues. He said that judicial forums should eliminate cases within the legally stipulated period.
The chief judge of Pakistan was invited to consider increasing the number of judges by keeping in mind the complaints of bars and taxpayers, improving cases management, rationalizing legal proceedings.
