IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1074 OF 2009 
(Against the judgment dated 20.3.2009 of 
the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in 
W.P.No.11983/2005) 
 
 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, 
Islamabad etc. 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
M/s Sahib Jee etc. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Mr. Khalid Abbas Khan, ASC 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Nemo 
 
 
For respondents 2 & 3: 
Ex-parte 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
19.01.2017 
… 
ORDER 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CJ.- On a complaint filed by 
respondent No.1 (respondent) against the appellant-department, the 
Federal Tax Ombudsman passed an order and made a recommendation 
in favour of the respondent which (order) was not assailed by the 
appellant by way of a representation in terms of Section 32 of the 
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 
2000 (the Ordinance). Instead the appellant filed a review petition in terms 
of Section 14(8) of the Ordinance which was dismissed vide order dated 
26.1.2004. This order was then challenged by the appellant through a 
representation under Section 32 of the Ordinance which was accepted 
by the President on 9.6.2005. Aggrieved, the respondent challenged the 
order through a constitution petition which was allowed by the learned 
Civil Appeal No.1074 of 2009 
-: 2 :- 
High Court through the impugned judgment. Leave was granted by this 
Court in the following terms:- 
 
“Leave is granted to consider whether the petitioners had 
the remedy of representation before the President of 
Pakistan against the order passed in review by Federal 
Tax Ombudsman.” 
 
 
2. 
 
Heard. The Ordinance is a comprehensive legislative 
instrument and a complete code in itself in consonance with its objects. 
The powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman are enunciated by Section 
14 of the Ordinance. Section 10 of the Ordinance sets out the procedure 
to deal with complaints or grievance petitions and the process of 
collecting and recording of evidence. Section 11(1) of the Ordinance 
prescribes “If the Federal Tax Ombudsman is of opinion that the matter considered 
amounts to mal-administration, he shall communicate his finding with a 
recommendation to the Revenue Division within a period of sixty days from the date of 
receipt of the complaint, reference or motion, as the case may be (emphasis supplied)”. It 
is further provided by Section 11(2) that “The Revenue Division shall, within 
such time as may be specified by the Federal Tax Ombudsman, inform him about the 
action taken on his recommendations or the reasons for not complying with the same”. 
Be that as it may, recourse against any recommendation made 
pursuant to Section 11, is provided by means of a representation to the 
President as prescribed by Section 32 of the Ordinance which reads as 
under:- 
 
32. 
Representation to President.– The Revenue 
Division or any person aggrieved by a recommendation of 
the Federal Tax Ombudsman may, within thirty days of 
the recommendation, make a representation to the 
Civil Appeal No.1074 of 2009 
-: 3 :- 
President who may pass such order thereon as he may 
deem fit.” 
 
In addition, the Federal Tax Ombudsman is also empowered by Section 
14(8) to exercise the power of review. The provision reads as under:- 
 
 “The Federal Tax Ombudsman shall have the power to 
review any finding communicated or recommendation 
made or any order passed by him”. 
 
3. 
 
From the above noted provisions of the Ordinance, 
particularly Section 32 thereof, it is abundantly clear that when the 
Revenue Division or any person is aggrieved of a recommendation 
made by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in terms of Section 11 of the 
Ordinance, it/he may file a representation to the President of Pakistan 
within 30 days of such recommendation. This remedy of representation, 
though not stricto sensu akin to an appeal, is nevertheless a statutory 
remedy and, therefore, the provision must be strictly construed and 
applied, meaning thereby that a representation is only available to 
either the Revenue Division or an aggrieved person as against a 
recommendation of the Federal Tax Ombudsman within 30 days’ time. 
Section 32 of the Ordinance does not envisage a representation against 
an order passed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman which is not in the 
nature of a recommendation. However, as mentioned earlier, Section 
14(8) of the Ordinance empowers the Federal Tax Ombudsman to 
review “any finding communicated or recommendation made or any order passed by 
him”. This power of review either invoked on behalf of an aggrieved 
person or the Revenue Division (note:- perhaps even under the exercise of suo motu 
powers, but as this is not a moot point before us therefore no definitive opinion is being 
expressed) has a wider scope and three kinds of decisions can be reviewed 
Civil Appeal No.1074 of 2009 
-: 4 :- 
by the Federal Tax Ombudsman:- (i) the findings which were 
communicated in terms of Section 11; (ii) a recommendation made by 
him; or (iii) any other order passed by him. If, whilst exercising this 
power of review, the Federal Tax Ombudsman sets aside his earlier 
decision, irrespective of whether it was a recommendation or not, and 
passes a new recommendation in the order of review, then this (new 
recommendation) shall have been passed pursuant to Section 11(1) ibid and 
a representation would be competent against it. Conversely, where a 
recommendation earlier made by the Federal Tax Ombudsman is not 
set aside while exercising the power of review, the order dismissing the 
review petition would not be tantamount to a fresh recommendation in 
terms of Sections 11 and 32 of the Ordinance against which a 
representation could be competently filed. In light whereof, we do not 
find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
19th January, 2017 
Approved For Reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
