Remanded cases, counsels’ fees: LTBA-PILC seeks FBR details

ISLAMABAD: Lahore Tax Bar Association (LTBA) Public Interest Litigation Committee (PILC) has sought details from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) of all cases which were remanded back from High Courts, without adjudication, to the tribunals/department and full fees were paid to the external counsels.

The issue came to the limelight after matter of excessive fee payments to FBR lawyers was highlighted by the LTBA-PILC, as a formal request under Article 19-A of the Constitution has been made in cases where the FBR Legal Wing has made payments of full legal fees in tax cases that were never adjudicated by High Courts.

The LTBA-PILC has apprehended that a huge amount has been paid in the form of fee in all such cases, which were remanded back from the High Courts.

Time-barred tax pleas dismissed: LTBA-PILC urges Aurangzeb to probe FBR ‘inefficiency’

According to the allegations, Lahore Tax Bar Association (LTBA) Public Interest Litigation Committee (PILC), has formally sought detailed information from FBR, alleging that thousands of appeals filed under the now-omitted Section 126A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were prematurely taken to High Courts, later remanded without any hearing on merits, yet external counsels were paid up to Rs.300,000 per case from the national exchequer.

LTBA-PILC stated that section 126A introduced in 2024 and quietly omitted through Finance Act 2025, allowed direct appeals to High Courts, bypassing the ATIR. This controversial provision resulted in an avalanche of legally defective appeals, most of which were returned to ATIR due to lack of jurisdiction, obviously without any adjudication on merits.

LTBA-PILC further accused that despite no arguments, no judgments, and no legal service rendered, FBR allegedly disbursed full legal fees to its panel counsels in remanded cases, causing wastage of taxpayer money.

LTBA-PILC further highlighted that High Courts had already settled the legal controversy in multiple cases, including Harras Hassan Syed v. CIR, Darya Khan Sugar Mills and Ibrar Iqbal, making subsequent litigation identical/similar in nature. Despite this, FBR allegedly failed to treat them as identical matters, instead paying separate fees in each case.

Tax lawyer Waheed Shahzad accused that the matter could attract accountability proceedings, as misuse of public funds by public servants may fall within the definition of corruption, particularly where illegal benefit is extended or public money is squandered without lawful justification, he alleged.

LTBA-PILC demanded disclosure of total number of section 126A appeals filed, number of cases remanded without adjudication, names of counsels and fees paid, total litigation cost incurred and whether any audit or inquiry has been initiated.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025