The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) is facing criticism for its refusal to disclose information regarding orders passed on the recommendations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committees (ADRCs). This decision has sparked concerns about transparency and accountability within the tax system, as it limits public access to how tax disputes are resolved.
Legal Battle Over ADRC Order Disclosure
The issue came to light following a directive from the Lahore High Court, requiring the FBR to provide ADRC-related orders to Advocate Waheed Shahzad Butt under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017. Earlier, the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) had issued a landmark ruling instructing the FBR to disclose these orders under the Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002, as protected by Article 19-A of the Constitution. However, the FBR has challenged this directive in the High Court instead of complying with it.
Why ADRC Transparency Matters
The ADRC mechanism serves as an alternative route for resolving tax disputes, providing taxpayers and businesses with an avenue outside of traditional litigation. The secrecy surrounding ADRC orders raises concerns about the system’s fairness and efficiency. Legal and tax experts argue that access to these decisions is crucial for evaluating how effectively the ADRC framework is functioning.
FBR’s Justification for Non-Disclosure
The FBR has cited Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, which classifies taxpayer-related information as “secret and confidential,” as the reason for withholding ADRC orders. Additionally, the FBR has invoked exclusion clauses from the Right of Access to Information Act 2017, which allow certain information to remain undisclosed. However, critics argue that while taxpayer details should remain private, the overall decisions and rationale behind ADRC rulings should be made available to ensure accountability.
Concerns from Tax and Legal Experts
Tax professionals and legal experts have raised alarms over the lack of transparency, warning that such secrecy undermines good governance. They argue that access to information is a fundamental right in a constitutional democracy and that public scrutiny of public institutions helps prevent misuse of authority.
Advocate Waheed Shahzad Butt has been at the forefront of this issue, emphasizing the need for transparency. “The public has a right to know how public functionaries perform their duties. Disclosure ensures accountability and helps prevent corruption and arbitrary decision-making,” he stated.
Implications for Governance and Public Trust
The FBR’s refusal to disclose ADRC orders sets a concerning precedent for institutional secrecy. If such decisions remain hidden from public oversight, it raises doubts about fairness in tax dispute resolution and weakens trust in the system. The High Court’s upcoming decision on this matter will be crucial in determining whether transparency prevails over bureaucratic confidentiality.