ABSTRACT
This article examines the judicial review of decisions made by the Federal Tax
Ombudsman (FTO) in Pakistan under the FTO Ordinance, 2000. It highlights how
High Courts assess the legality and fairness of FTO findings, especially in cases of
maladministration by tax authorities like the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). The
article explains the legal framework, common grounds for judicial intervention, and
analyzes selected court decisions to show the balance between FTO's authority and
judicial oversight.

INTRODUCTION
The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) was created under the FTO Ordinance, 2000
(Ordinance No. XXII of 2000) to investigate complaints of maladministration by tax
authorities, particularly the FBR. While this office enhances taxpayer protection and
administrative accountability, its decisions are not final and can be subjected to
judicial review.
This article addresses the legal question: To what extent are FTO decisions
reviewable by the courts, and on what grounds? The article was chosen due to the
growing volume of taxpayer complaints and increasing reliance on ombudsman
institutions for administrative justice. The topic has a national scope, focusing on
Pakistan’s legal framework, with implications for administrative law, public
accountability, and protection of taxpayer rights. The article covers legal and social
aspects, exploring how judicial scrutiny can ensure transparency in tax administration.

JURISDICTION AND MANDATE OF THE FTO
The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) operates under the FTO Ordinance, 2000, which
empowers the office to address maladministration by tax officials—especially those
of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). These include delays, abuse of power,
negligence, and failure to follow rules in the discharge of duties. However, the FTO's
recommendations are not binding like a court's judgment. The ombudsman cannot
decide tax liability or revise assessments; rather, it serves a recommendatory and
accountability role within its administrative jurisdiction.

CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 199
Judicial review of FTO decisions is exercised through the writ jurisdiction of High
Courts under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The courts have the
authority to check whether a public office or body, like the FTO, has acted legally,
fairly, and within its powers. Judicial review is not an appeal; it focuses on the
decision-making process rather than the decision itself. It ensures that FTO decisions
comply with the law, follow principles of natural justice, and do not infringe on
fundamental rights.

COMMON LEGAL GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGING FTO DECISIONS
Courts often entertain judicial reviews of FTO decisions on the following grounds:
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION: If the FTO intervenes in matters legally reserved for
tax tribunals (e.g., tax assessments), its decision can be struck down.
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS: If a party was not granted a fair hearing before the
FTO's decision, it may be challenged for breaching natural justice.
LACK OF LEGAL AUTHORITY: The FTO cannot override statutory provisions or
issue binding directions.
CONFLICT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Any recommendation that infringes
upon a taxpayer’s fundamental rights or property rights may invite judicial review.

JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OF THE FTO’S FUNCTIONAL BOUNDARIES
The High Courts have repeatedly emphasized that while the FTO is instrumental in
addressing taxpayer grievances, it must not overstep its advisory limits. For instance,
in the Anti-Dumping Case (FTO vs. NTC), the FTO was held to have encroached upon
the domain of trade laws, which was outside its mandate. The court clarified that
ombudsman institutions cannot become parallel adjudicatory authorities.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS SHAPING FTO JURISPRUDENCE
In Constitutional Petition D-7176/2022 (Sindh High Court), the petitioner argued that
the FTO’s recommendation amounted to interference with tax assessment. The court
reaffirmed that the FTO cannot influence pending proceedings or override decisions
of competent tax authorities. Similarly, in Review Application No. 74/2003, it was
ruled that once the FTO issues a review decision, no further representation to the
President is maintainable showing the finality of certain stages of FTO proceedings.

BALANCING ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY WITH LEGAL RESTRAINT
Judicial review of FTO decisions ensures that taxpayer rights are protected while
maintaining the integrity of tax law administration. Courts recognize the FTO as a
tool for accountability, but they also act as a check to prevent misuse of that tool. As
stated in multiple judgments, "oversight cannot become overreach." Hence, judicial
review allows courts to correct procedural errors or jurisdictional excesses without
undermining the broader purpose of the FTO.

CONCLUSION
Judicial review of FTO decisions is essential to maintain a legal balance between
taxpayer rights and administrative accountability. Courts serve as guardians to ensure
that the FTO does not misuse its role or interfere in matters reserved for tax tribunals.
As the ombudsman institution grows in importance, judicial oversight acts as a
safeguard to reinforce fair governance. Ultimately, the review process strengthens
both public trust and institutional integrity.

This article concludes that while the FTO is a valuable watchdog, its actions must
remain within the framework defined by law. Judicial review not only protects
affected parties but also upholds the rule of law in tax administration.