Inland Revenue officials go to Court against new Bill

By S.S. Selvanayagam

Senior Inland Revenue officials along with employees expressed their opposition to the Inland Revenue Bill by filing a petition against it in the Supreme Court.

The petition was filed through attorney Nishantha Sirimanne, represented in court by senior counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardena PC, who sought a special determination from the Supreme Court.

The Inland Revenue Deputy Commissioners’ Association, which comprises the organisation’s most senior and highest ranking officers, the Inland Revenue Staff Officers’ Association, the Inland Revenue Executive Officers Union and the Inland Revenue Service Union as well as the Inland Revenue Employees’ General Union and six others cited Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera and the Attorney General as respondents.

The petitioners say that the Bill is illegal and inconsistent with the Constitution and undermines their status and function.

They also claimed that they were filing this application in the interests of the taxpayers, who stand to be adversely affected with regard to the levying of taxes by the State, and in order to preserve the protection conferred on the tax-paying public.

They say that the provisions permitting the appointment and engagement of the services of any person regardless of their status, poses a significant threat to the independence and accountability of tax officers and the tax collecting and assessment process of the department.

They state that the appointment of people not employed by the PSC or through a process approved by the PSC seriously impairs and undermines the independence of the functions of the Department of Inland Revenue and its designated officers as well as the tax assessment and collection process of the State.

The petitioners highlighted that the independence of officials making tax assessments was of the utmost importance given the sensitivity involved in the assessment of taxes to be paid by the general public.

They added that maintaining fair competition in the free market requires an independent tax assessment, given that conflicts of interests or biased tax assessments could confer an unjust advantage or bring economic ruin to individuals and enterprises.

The petitioners went on to assert that tax officers could not be guaranteed to be independent as they would be pliable in the hands of those in power.