ISLAMABAD: Makhdoom Ali Khan, a counsel for taxpayers, questioned what legal right or pecuniary interest the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has to challenge the statutory provisions before the High Court. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi then inquired whether the taxpayers in their petitions before the Islamabad High Court had made federation and the FBR party. Makhdoom Ali Khan, lawyer of taxpayers replied ‘yes’. He, however, contended that the FBR is the department of the Revenue Division, and the Commissioner Inland Revenue (CIR) is an officer of the FBR. He said “the CIR does not have right to file a suit in the court,” adding under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 he can file a reference application before the High Court if dissatisfied with an order of the Appellate Tribunal, but no right to challenge the statutory provisions. READ MORE: FBR counsel argues before FCC: Legislature can levy a tax with retrospective effect A three-member judge bench of the FCC, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and comprising Justice Rizvi and Justice Arshad Hussain on Wednesday heard the FBR appeals against the judgments of Sindh, Lahore and Islamabad High Courts regarding levy of Super Tax under Section 4C, inserted in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through Finance Act 2015. Makhdoom Ali Khan raised preliminary objections on the appeals, saying Articles 90 and 99 and also under the Rules of Business the executive authority of the federation is exercised in the name of the President of Pakistan. Additional Attorney General for Pakistan (AAGP) Aamir Rehman argued that objections on the appeals should have been raised by the counsels of taxpayers at an earlier stage. He said normally the procedure is that before the appellant lawyers’ arguments objections on maintainability or petition are raised. Makhdoom responded that it is the duty of the appellants that the appeal is ‘competently filed’. He, however, told that advocate Sardar Ahmed Jamal Sukhera, another counsel of taxpayers, had raised these objections earlier, and the AAGP had told the Court would respond, but so far has not rebutted them. Makhdoom stated that the FBR, which is part of the Revenue Division, cannot conduct litigation on its own. It has to be done with the concurrence of the Finance Ministry, adding in the instant matter the FBR is suing the Revenue Division. He emphasised that the Ministry of Law and Justice on behalf of the federation carries out the litigation and the ministries in consultation with the Law Division hires the lawyers. The right is not given to the department to engage in litigation independently. He said that in the Rules of Business various officers are designated to sign the documents, while the Commissioner Inland Revenue is not an officer, authorised to sign the petitions. Makhdoom argued that there are number of statutory bodies, which can file the suit in their name when the power is given. However, the FBR, part of the Revenue Division, is not empowered that can file a suit in the court of law. It is not like private bodies that perform their functions independently. He further argued that the Commissioner Inland Revenue does not fall in the definition of the aggrieved person, adding a person not aggrieved of an order/judgment can file an appeal. He stated there was no authorisation by the Board to any of its Member or office to sign the Power of Attorney, besides that the Member (legal) of the FBR signed it. He also stated that no authority of the federation, nor any resolution or decision of the federal cabinet has been produced in the appeals. All the appeals have been filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue before the Court, he added. The case is adjourned until today (Thursday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2026