LAHORE: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has yet to file written comments before the Lahore High Court (LHC) in a constitutional petition challenging the legality of its peer-ranking reward scheme.
The petition, filed by Advocate Waheed Shahzad Butt through constitutional expert Muhammad Azhar Siddique, invokes Article 199 and questions the validity of the Inland Revenue (IR) Reward Rules and Customs Reward Rules.
It argues that these provisions have enabled what it describes as an “unregulated and unconstitutional distribution” of millions of rupees from the public exchequer to selected FBR officials, allegedly without clear legal backing, transparent criteria, or parliamentary oversight.
The LHC had issued notices to multiple respondents, including senior government officials such as the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, FBR leadership, members of the Policy Board, federal ministers, parliamentary finance committees, the Auditor General of Pakistan, and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
All were directed to submit detailed replies addressing the constitutional and legal concerns raised in the petition.
Commenting on the delay, Waheed Butt said the FBR’s silence raises serious concerns, noting that an institution responsible for enforcing tax laws appears unable to justify the distribution of taxpayer funds under its internal reward system.
At the center of the case is the peer-ranking reward scheme, under which tax officials reportedly receive financial incentives based on rankings assigned by their colleagues. The petitioner argues that such a closed-loop system is vulnerable to favoritism and lacks institutional transparency.
The petition further maintains that these payouts, drawn from public funds, do not meet constitutional requirements, lack statutory authorization, and operate outside approved parliamentary appropriations and accountability frameworks—potentially placing significant public money beyond legislative scrutiny and audit.
Legal experts, civil society groups, and fiscal watchdogs are closely following the case, particularly given the inclusion of oversight bodies like the Auditor General and FIA as respondents, highlighting the broader accountability implications.
The petitioner warned that if the Court rules the scheme unconstitutional, it could have far-reaching consequences for how the FBR designs incentive structures and manages public funds. For now, the FBR’s failure to respond continues to draw attention as proceedings move forward.
