KARACHI: An assessment conducted by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has identified significant weaknesses in the ability of inland revenue officers in Karachi to handle sales tax and income tax cases, with only a small proportion demonstrating the competence required to issue legally sound orders independently.
Conducted on the instructions of the FBR chairman, the open-book examination assessed officers in Grades 17 to 19 by requiring them to identify errors in draft tax orders and explain the legal grounds for their findings.
According to the training assessment report, none of the 150 sales tax officers who appeared in the examination achieved the 60% benchmark, while only four of the 143 income tax officers scored 60% or above.
Average scores stood at 26.4% in sales tax and 33.3% in income tax. As many as 47 sales tax officers and 16 income tax officers scored below 20%.
The report found that only 15 sales tax officers met the standard required to issue orders under their own signatures, compared with 14 income tax officers. Among 139 officers who appeared in both categories, only four demonstrated the ability to issue correct orders in both taxes.
The assessment also identified weaknesses in supervisory review. Only 21 sales tax officers and 28 income tax officers demonstrated the ability to effectively review the legal aspects of orders prepared by colleagues, while just eight qualified to review orders in both categories.
Among commissioners and additional commissioners, only four of 56 met the required review standard in sales tax, compared with six of 53 in income tax.
Deputy commissioners performed comparatively better, with most officers capable of adjudicating or reviewing orders concentrated at that level, particularly in the Large Taxpayers Office.
The report found that higher grades did not necessarily correspond with stronger technical competence. While officers were often able to identify errors, many struggled to explain the relevant legal grounds. Around 31% of sales tax entries and 24% of income tax entries incorrectly identified mistakes that did not exist.
The assessment classified 14 officers as requiring retraining before handling cases independently in either category, while another 31 were assessed at desk level or below in both.
The report recommended targeted training in adjudication, legal reasoning, evidence assessment and drafting orders, alongside assigning responsibilities according to demonstrated competence rather than designation.
It also called for strengthening the supervisory review system to improve the quality of tax orders.
The report cautioned that the findings were based on three cases in each tax category and should be treated as an initial indicator of officers’ capabilities rather than a comprehensive assessment.
