Sources told Business Recorder that while deciding the case, the IHC observed that spirit of Section 18 is to bar availing simultaneously different remedies. Since the applicant has already availed remedy under the FTO Ordinance, 2000, hence, remedies under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 cannot be availed in light of the bar provided in Section 18.
Explaining the provisions of FOIRA, 2013 tax lawyer Waheed Shahzad Butt told Business Recorder that the ATIR and others cannot exercise jurisdiction to entertain a matter pending with or decided by the FTO. The Section 18 of FOIRA shall reduce unnecessary litigation at dual/multiple forums. The Section 18 states no court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of an Ombudsman nor any court or authority shall assume jurisdiction in respect of any matter pending with or decided by an Ombudsman. Initially office of the Federal Ombudsman was established in 1983 and at present five ombudsmen are functioning at federal level, which includes FTO, Wafaqi, Insurance & Banking Mohtasib and Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women. The office of any ombudsman is one of the core institutions of the country where the grievances of the non-influential masses are addressed speedily, effectively and even free of charge without spending a single rupee on account of litigation expenses.
The IHC order states: "This is an application for framing questions of law arising out the decision of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue dated 30.05.2016 and answering the same. A complaint was filed before the Federal Tax Ombudsman against the abovementioned show cause. The complaint was allowed and it was recommended that the respondent department should withdraw the show cause notice. The respondent, meanwhile, passed order, whereby it was ordered that tax amounting to Rs 82,682,021 is recoverable. The respondent department also filed representation before the President of Pakistan against the order of the FTO which was accepted. The applicant filed appeal before the ATIR against order which was dismissed.
The counsel submitted that since the matter stands decided by the FTO, therefore, bar in Section 18 of 2013 Act is applicable. The sole question before this court is that once remedy is availed by the tax payer before the FTO and the matter is finally decided by the referred forum whether any other court or authority can exercise jurisdiction with respect to the same matter. The bare perusal of the above section shows where a matter falls within the jurisdiction of an Ombudsman and the same has been decided by the referred office or is pending before it, no court or authority shall exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto. The applicant in the instant case approached FTO against the show cause notice which entertained the complaint and decided the matter under Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. Similarly, the representation was filed by the department against the decision of the FTO. It is not the case of the parties before this court that the FTO or the President of Pakistan has no jurisdiction in the matter under the FTO Ordinance, 2000. The complaint filed by the applicant was finally decided by the Ombudsman and then by way of representation by the President. The spirit of Section 18 is to bar availing simultaneously different remedies. Since the applicant has already availed remedy under FTO Ordinance, 2000, hence, remedies under the sales Tax Act, 1990 cannot be availed in light of the bar provided in Section 18.
In view of above, the question framed by this court is answered in affirmative as the ATIR rightly dismissed the appeals filed by the applicant in light of bar provided in Section 18 of the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, the IHC ordered.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2017