JUSTICE AYESHA A. MALIK.--(1). Through this petition alongwith conne cted writ petitions as detailed in Schedule-A, the Petitioners have challenged orders whereby their taxing jurisdiction has been changed, primarily from Regional Tax Office ("RTO") Faisalabad to Large Taxpayer Office ("LTO") Multan, from LTO Multan to LTO Islamabad or L TO Lahore and in some cases the R TOs have been changed.
2. The case of the Petitioners is that they are registered as manufacture- cum-exporters with RTO Faisalabad and their jurisdiction has been changed from RTO Faisalabad to LTO Multan vide order dated 12.10.2020. It is their case that this order is in excess of jurisdiction; that there is no provision under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance ") or Sales Tax Act, 1990 which allows for change in jurisdiction. More importantly , the transfer of jurisdiction has been done contrary to the principles of natural justice and without following due process. The Petitioners have argued that within the overall scheme of tax collection, as structured under the law there is no provision for change of jurisdiction and that the Respondents are obligated to facilitate the taxpayers. It is argued that by way of change of jurisdiction especially a change from the place of business not only causes inconvenience but also financial hardship on taxpayers as they are required to provide all documentations at the changed LTOs or RTOs, which becomes difficult and expe nsive. It is also argued that the change in jurisdiction means that the jurisdiction is exercised by the Respondents from a city where neither the registered offices are located nor any branch or factory is located, hence on this account, the order of change of jurisdiction is illegal and against the mandate of law. In this regard, the Petitioners have placed reliance on Babar Hussain Shah and another v.
Mujeeb Ahmed Khan and another (2012 SCMR 1235 ), New Jubilee Insurance Company LTD, Karachi v.
National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi (PLD 1999 SC 1126), Government of Pakistan v. M/s Village Development Organization (PTCL 2005 CL 138), Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust through its Chairman and other v. Mst. Qaisra Elahi and others (PLJ 2005 SC 925), Moulana Atta ur Rehman v. Al-Hall Sardar Umar Farooq and others (PLD 2008 SC 663), Muhammad Khan v. Shamsuddin and others (1969 SCMR 212), Chief Commissioner , Karachi and another v. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak (PLD 195 SC (Pak) 45), Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C and another (1994 SCMR 2232 ), Messrs Dewan Salman Fiber Ltd and another v.
Government of N.W.F.P through Secretary , Revenue Department, Peshawar and other s (PLD 2004 SC 441), Chairman, Regional Transport Authority , Rawalpindi v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company Limited Rawalpindi (PLD 1991 SC 14 ) and Shabbir Ahmed v . Kiran Khursheed and 8 others (2012 CLC 1236 ).
3. On behalf of the Respondents, report and parawise comments have been filed by the Respondents. It is argued that there were originally three Large Taxpayers Units ("LTUs") (recently re-designated as the Large Taxpayers Offices) at Islamabad, Karachi and Lahor e and now LTO Multan has been set up. Muhammad Abid, Chief Inland Revenue Formation appeared in person and explained that all cases where the turnover is of more than rupees one billion and have a revenue contribution of Rs. 20.00 Million or more have been assigned to LTOs. The object of setting up LTOs is to make the tax system more efficient, revenue responsive, large taxpayer friendly and uniformly in tax cases across geographical location. He explained that all four LTOs are fully functional and in some cases they are industry specific. In this regard, he explained that for sugar mills the designated LTOs is Lahore so as to facilitate their audit and otherwise. This includes WP No.54487/2020 being a sugar mill. So far as the real estate developers, their Association contacted the Respondents and requested that their LTO be shifted to Multan. In this regard, he stated that this includes the developers in WP Nos.61429 and 62392 of 2020. He further explained that the formation of LTOs is the result of the Tax Administration Reform Project ("TARP "), which was executed in 2000 and continued for some time uptil 2010 and LTO Multan was part of the original plan, though delayed. He stated that it is misconceived that transfer of jurisdiction involves hardship, both financial and otherwise as all working is online and in few cases they will be required to present documents in person. The Respondents have relied Section 209 (8A) of the Ordinance read with powers contained under the Federal Board of Revenue Act, 2007 ("Act") to establish their authority on change in jurisdiction.
4. The basic contention of the Petitioners is that their taxing jurisdiction cannot be changed and specifically they have all challenged notification whereby they have been transferred to LTO Multan, LTO Lahore or a new RTO. In terms of Section 209 (8A) of the Ordinance, the power for change of jurisdiction is categorically provided for such that the power to confer jurisdiction includes the power to transfer jurisdiction from one income tax authority to another . Hence the basic contention of the Petitioners that this change in jurisdiction is illegal and beyond the scope of power given to the Respondents is totally misconceived as the law specifically gives the power to confer jurisdiction, which includes the power to transfer jurisdiction from one tax authority to another . In this regard, it is noted that the Federal Board of Revenue ("FBR ") under Section 4 of the Act has the power to make regulations, policies, programs, strategies in order to carry out the purposes of this Act which includes to implement tax administration reforms and adopt modern effective tax administration methods, improve processes and to make all necessary rules and orders, circulars and instructions for the enforcement of any of the provisions of fiscal law and the provision of this Act. Hence the change in jurisdiction or transfer of jurisdiction is well within the scope of the powers of the Respondents. In this regard, by virtue of the report submitted before this Court, it is stated that there are total 350 cases transferred to different LTOs in Multan and Lahore as well as the change in jurisdiction of different RTOs. Only 122 persons have challenged their transfer whereas the rest have accepted the transfer of jurisdiction orders. In this regard, it is also noted that a criteria has been provided for LTOs, catchment areas have been defined and the Petitioners all meet the criteria, as there is no dispute on the criteria and the Petitioners applicability to the same. In this regard, the Petitioners are not required to be issued any notice nor are they required to be consulted on the issue. The taxpayers are obligated to be processed at the relevant LTO or RTO on the basis of the criteria set out and the defined catchment area. Furthermore no right of the Petitioner is infringed as at best they have pleaded hardship and inconvenience, which does not violate any fundamental right.
5. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed.