ISLAMABAD — The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) continues to resist calls for disclosure of decisions made by its Alternative Dispute Resolution Committees (ADRCs), even as concerns mount over alleged multi-billion-rupee losses to the exchequer due to misinterpretation of tax laws. The matter is currently pending before the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC), which is now tasked with determining whether the public’s right to information outweighs the FBR’s claims of institutional confidentiality.
The controversy stems from efforts by tax lawyer and whistleblower Advocate Waheed Shahzad Butt to obtain details of ADRC rulings. These committees, which operate under the FBR’s administrative control, are accused of extending undue tax benefits to select individuals and entities by allegedly misapplying tax provisions. The result, according to critics, has been a significant loss to the national treasury.
Despite repeated legal efforts—including petitions filed before the Federal Tax Ombudsman, the President of Pakistan, and both Single and Division Benches of the Lahore High Court—the FBR has so far declined to release the requested information.
The FBR’s main defence rests on Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which prohibits public servants from disclosing taxpayer-related data. The tax authority maintains that this section renders the ADRC rulings confidential and therefore beyond the reach of public scrutiny, even under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.
However, experts argue that this interpretation misuses the confidentiality clause. “Shielding questionable decisions behind Section 216 undermines transparency and fiscal accountability,” said Advocate Waheed Butt. He contends that the law was never intended to protect the actions of public officials that may result in financial harm to the state.
The PIC will now evaluate whether the protection afforded under Section 216 can justifiably override the broader public interest in exposing administrative actions with far-reaching economic consequences. The outcome could set an important precedent for how state institutions handle transparency in tax matters.
Earlier, the Lahore High Court had directed the FBR to disclose ADRC decisions in response to a formal information request by Waheed Butt. However, in a written response, the FBR not only declined to share the records but also invoked exemption clauses of the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, to justify withholding the data.
Legal and tax professionals have voiced alarm at the FBR’s position, arguing that ADRC decisions directly affect both taxpayers and the broader fiscal framework, and should therefore be open to scrutiny. “This kind of opacity creates space for discretionary decision-making and undermines public trust in revenue institutions,” said a senior tax consultant.
The core of the dispute lies in whether the confidentiality provisions in tax law were intended to prevent disclosures that are in the public interest. Critics argue that blanket application of secrecy provisions not only obstructs accountability but also protects potentially flawed or biased decisions from ever being questioned.
“Access to information is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy,” said Butt. “The public has a right to know how public institutions operate, particularly when their decisions affect national revenues and economic fairness.”
He added that information asymmetry allows highhandedness and corruption to flourish, and stressed that transparency in dispute resolution mechanisms is essential to restore public trust in tax governance.
The PIC’s decision in the coming weeks will be closely watched, as it is expected to define the boundaries between institutional confidentiality and public interest in Pakistan’s tax and accountability framework.
