The FTO ordered FBR to trace out the record of pending cases prior to the year 2019.
The (Federal Tax Ombudsman) FTO also asked the Federal Board of Revenue to develop a legal module in such a way that the case pending adjudication with each officer would be visible to the concerned commissioners as well as the chief commissioners along with date of expiry of the case.
The own motion investigation initiated on the complaints received to Tax Ombudsman wherein complainants had contended that their cases were not adjudicated afresh on their remand back by Appellate Tribunal for consideration during the period prescribed in the Section 11 B(2) of the Act, therefore they had become time barred. They approached to the concerned authorities but no action was taken.
However, Section 11B (2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 states as below:
11B .Assessment giving effect to an order:-
(2) Where, by an order made under Chapter-VIll by the Appellate Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court, an order of assessment is remanded wholly or partly and the Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) or officer of Inland Revenue, as the case may be, is directed to pass a new order of assessment, the Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) or officer of inland revenue as the case may be, shall pass the new order within one year from the end of the financial year in which the Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) or officer of Inland Revenue, as the case may be, is served with the order:
Therefore, a notice was sent to all the Chief Commissioners –IR as well the commissioners –IR (Appeals). All seven Commissioners-IR (Appeals) reported nil. Chief Commissioners-IR sent lists of remanded back cases lying with them and reported that none of them was time barred. Since, information provided was contrary to factual position therefore, Additional Commissioners IR , Office of Chief Commissioners and regional offices like MTO,CTO,RTO –I and RTO –II were also called to discuss the issue.
FTO observed that prior to 2019, neither there was computerization of legal record, nor it was manually maintained properly. There is all possibility of many remanded back cases lying pending in different offices unattended and no one is taking pains to dig out such cases , as after transfer of sales tax regime from customs to IR in the year, 2010, frequent changes are witnessed over jurisdiction of cases on large scales and this exercise is continued.
Although, jurisdiction over cases were notified by FBR itself, but nobody bothered to oversee as to whether the PRAL had shifted the soft record of the aggrieved registered persons from previous jurisdiction to new one, resultantly the notifications show jurisdiction at one place and the PRAL system at other place for years together till some complaint was filed or the person made efforts himself to got it transferred and even after transfer of soft data by PRAL from old place to new one, the manual record was not transferred by the old office to new one. Since new office did not process the case without manual record, the case remained unattended, as Department still maintains both records i.e. soft as well as hard for processing any case because of the fact that all operations are not being automated.
no procedure has been developed by FBR for field formations about transfer of the cases when jurisdiction is changed. Changes over jurisdiction coupled with frequent transfers/postings of officers without observing tenures, further complicate the situation, as the incumbent remained unaware of pendency of remanded back cases, no linkage of field offices had been developed with the appellate fora, therefore, when Order-in-Appeal or judgment is passed by the courts, its recording in the relevant file or computer system depends on human resource; which is prone to cause lapses due to one reason or the other.
Accordingly, The Tax Ombudsman in pursuance of own motion cognizance has ordered FBR ;
• To review the soft data of all registered persons to bring them in line with the existing jurisdictional notifications and ensure that whenever change in jurisdiction is notified in future, the soft data is transferred by PRAL to the concerned field office immediately
• Member-IR (Operations) to lay down procedure for transfer of manual record from previous jurisdiction to new one; once the jurisdictional change of any case is made
• Member-IR (Operations) to direct the field formations to trace out the record of remanded back cases prior to the year 2019 and get them decided as per law; as argument of non application of provisions of Section 11B(2) on the cases prior to 2018 is not satisfactory
• Member (IT) to extend the scope of computerization up to the level of Commissioner-IR (Appeals) and ensure that their proceedings in the cases are also online; as is in the case of LTO
• Member (IT) to develop/enhance legal module in such a way that the case pending adjudication with each officer is visible to the concerned Commissioner as well as the Chief Commissioner along with date of expiry of the case. If possible, alert should be generated by the system at least 15 days prior to expiry of the case
• Member-IR (Operations) to prescribe a procedure for field formations for feeding the orders passed by the appellate tribunals and superior courts and upload them on the system and compliance on recommendations (i), (iv) & (v) must be made within three months by sending monthly progress report. However, compliance of recommendations (ii), (iii) & (vi) must be made within 45 days.
