Uploading order to FBR’s IRIS portal alone not valid delivery, rules LHC

The Lahore High Court has ruled that simply uploading an appellate order to FBR’s IRIS portal does not meet the requirements for valid service under the Income Tax Ordinance of 2001. A three-judge division bench, presided over by Justices Mirza Viqas Rauf and Anwaar Hussain, considered three related reference applications filed by Tahir Mehmood.

These applications contested three orders from the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which had dismissed taxpayers' appeals as time-barred due to the alleged sufficient service via IRIS. In one case, the taxpayer claimed that the Covid-19 pandemic and quarantine following a foreign trip had prevented him from accessing the portal.

The other two taxpayers argued that they only became aware of the Commissioner (Appeals)’ orders after receiving recovery notices in April 2026, which was several months after the orders were passed. Justice Anwaar Hussain, who wrote the judgment, clarified that Section 218(1)(d) of the ordinance only considers electronic service if it is carried out in a prescribed manner.

He pointed out that Rule 74 of the Income Tax Rules restricts electronic addresses to fax numbers or email addresses and mandates confirmation of transmission. The judge noted that IRIS is an internal, web-based workflow system specifically for tax administration, and placing an order in a taxpayer’s account does not equate to transmitting it to an electronic address as required by the rule.

He emphasized the distinction between an order being accessible and being served as required by law. The judge concluded that the limitation period could not commence from an event deemed unrecognizable under the law as the initiating point. He dismissed the department’s claim that Rule 74 could not limit the parent provision, asserting that the requirement of service in the "prescribed manner" was inherent in the ordinance itself.

The judge also rejected the argument that taxpayers were obligated to continuously monitor IRIS, stating that the department could not dismiss the pandemic-related justification, as determining the tribunal's conclusion involved a legal question that the high court was empowered to assess. The judge stressed that technology is merely a tool for statutory administration, not a standalone source of statutory authority, and modernization cannot override legal safeguards.

The court cited precedents from the Peshawar, Islamabad, and Delhi High Courts, as well as Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution. The bench overturned the challenged orders and instructed the tribunal to reconsider the appeals on their merits.