A Comparative Legal Study On Cross- Jurisdictional Taxpayer Rights - India Vs International Standards

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Taxation

Published: 2026-08-23T16:56:04.301082+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:11:30.604Z

A COMPARATIVE LEGAL STUDY ON CROSS-

JURISDICTIONAL TAXPAYER RIGHTS: INDIA VS INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Shivani Soni, Institute of Law, Nirma University

ABSTRACT

This research paper comparatively analyzes the taxpayers' rights in the purview of India and other countries. Taxation is a fundamental source of revenue for the government. The present political atmosphere has resulted in an expansion of tax administrations' investigative capabilities to address tax evasion and aggressive tax planning. In response to public demands for more effective actions against tax fraud and evasion, considering the role that taxpayers play in ensuring that taxation powers are exercised within the constraints of the rule of law, such additional authority must be balanced with the swift and efficient protection of taxpayers' fundamental rights. This tendency supports the growing significance of the debate over the practical safeguarding of taxpayers' rights.

This paper examines how the taxpayers' rights vary across jurisdictions depending on each country's legal framework and policies. It encompasses the entitlements and protections granted to individuals in taxation, which include the right to information, the right to privacy, the right to challenge tax assessments, and the right to appeal decisions. The study adopts a mixed-method approach to analyse taxpayers' rights through qualitative and comparative analyses. The study tries to map out a comparative approach adopted by different countries, including India, and the recent developments made about the rights of taxpayers, which are codified under tax legislation along with administrative directives, and the role of the judiciary. Keywords: Social Equity, Right to Information, Right to Privacy, Tax Planning.

Objectives

1. To critically examine India's Taxpayer Rights Legal Framework

2. To analyze the Taxpayer Rights Standards of Latin America and Australia

3. To examine the recent legal reforms addressing the issues of taxpayers' rights.

4. To Assess the Implementation of Taxpayer Rights in Practice

5. To identify and examine the challenges in harmonizing Indian taxpayer rights with

other international standards. Methodology This paper adopts the qualitative research approach, utilizing secondary sources of data to conduct a comprehensive analysis of taxpayers' rights in India in comparison to other countries. This methodology will focus on gathering, reviewing, and synthesizing existing legal research papers, articles, and case laws to address the research questions. This paper aims to compare the Indian taxpayer rights frameworks with internationally recognized standards, emphasizing how legislative safeguards are practically applicable in the practice of tax matters. Introduction Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi introduced the Taxpayer's Charter while inaugurating the 'Transparent Taxation - Honouring the Honest' initiative, which includes faceless assessment, faceless appeal, and the taxpayer's charter.

Faceless assessment and the taxpayer's charter were introduced on August 13, 2020, while faceless appeal will be applicable from September 25,

2020. This is a significant advancement in unifying rights and obligations while elucidating

the government's responsibility to the taxpayer. The taxpayer's charter was issued by the Finance Minister, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, under the Finance Act of 2020. The charter stipulates that the department should be accountable to taxpayers in terms of administrative proceedings about taxes. It guarantees the taxpayers' redressal of their grievances within a time framework in a fair, reasonable, and transparent manner. The rights and obligations reflect principles embedded in existing legislation that uphold the right to privacy, the right to lodge complaints and timely resolution, the right to legal certainty, etc. , leading to a fair and just system. For instance, sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act mandate that an assessing officer must have a valid reason to believe income has escaped assessment before reopening a case.

This provision ensures that reassessments are grounded in evidence and are not merely based on suspicion or rumor, thereby upholding the principle that taxpayers are to be treated as honest unless substantiated grounds indicate otherwise. The taxpayer charter of India is designed and inspired by international standards of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, etc. , which have their charters like the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, HMRC charter, etc. Yet, the scope and approach vary as India’s taxpayer charter is tending more towards commitment rather than enforceability of rights mentioned in the Taxpayers Bill of Rights under US and Canadian jurisdiction, which provides a statutory mechanism to challenge the same in case of violation of the taxpayer bill of rights. Indian taxpayers are allowed to appoint representatives, but there is no formal advocate service like the U. S.

Taxpayer Advocate Service, which helps taxpayers in navigating complex tax issues. There are primarily three major differences between them: enforcement, accessibility, and taxpayer support. International standards are becoming legally binding sets of rights, while the Indian charter continues to evolve, and extensive support and streamlined processes are available for taxpayer convenience. This article will explore the following rights:

1. Right to Appeal and Judicial Review

2. Right to Legal Certainty

3. Right to Equality

4. Right to Privacy

5. Right to Informed, Assisted, and Heard.

Right to Appeal and Judicial Review When the interests of the taxpayers are affected by the order passed by the assessing officer, the Income Tax has provided avenues for seeking remedies for justice to be rendered. Although the Bombay High Court in the case of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. v. CIT held that the right to appeal is not inherent, it is merely a statutory right[1]. Section 246A grants the right to first appeal to taxpayers, enabling them to seek redress for grievances against the order passed to the commissioner, subject to exceptions for orders that refuse to grant registration of charitable or religious trusts for income tax exemptions[2] and approval of donations qualifying for deductions[3]. In certain cases where the appeal is barred under the Limitation Act, a revision application can be filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax by the assessee.

The Commissioner of Income Tax can take suo moto action against the same[4]. The Commissioner has the authority to request and review the records of any proceedings conducted under this Act, and if he considers that any order issued by the assessing officer is erroneous or against the interest of revenue under Section 147. The commissioner has the authority to revise the order passed by the assessing officer under Section 263 of the Income Tax, which authorizes commissioners to revise the orders. An assessee has 30 days from the date of the order passed under 143(3), 144, 153A, 147[1] to file an appeal before the Commissioner as per section 264A[5]. If the commissioner is satisfied that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in applying, he may allow an appeal to be filed even after the expiration of the stipulated period.

The second appeal lies before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is the highest factfinding authority, within 60 days of the decision rendered in the first appeal[6]. This appeal can be filed either by the assessee or the assessment officer, in contrast to the first appeal, where it is restricted to the assessee only. An appeal to the High Court only lies when a question of substantial law arises under the purview of section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, section 256 allows that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment of the High Court in cases certified as fit for appeal, whether arising from an order under Section 254 made before or after October 1, 1998, or based on a reference before the establishment of the National Tax Tribunal. The burden of proof varies subjectively to the facts.

In the case of Haridh Wadhwa vs CIT it was held by the Karnataka High Court that when an order is rendered without due consideration of the relevant facts, it should be set aside and remitted to the Tribunal by granting an opportunity to be heard, which ensures that the principle of Audi Alteram Partem is followed and appellants can present their arguments[7]. Therefore, the commissioner of income tax is precluded from permitting undisclosed matters or directives from external authorities, including circulars, to affect his decision-making process. As part of the Tax Statutes, the principles of Advance Rulings[8] have also been outlined in Chapter 19-B of the Income Tax Act 1961, in connection with questions relating to income tax, excise duty, and customs duty regarding questions of tax liability and other obligations, including facts and issues.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings and the Authority for Advance Rulings in Tax litigation about Goods and Services are comprised of tax officers rather than judges. Taxpayers often choose to directly approach the High Courts or the Supreme Court, bypassing administrative tribunals, which can entail significant costs and delays. Under tax law, taxpayers are mandated to deposit a percentage of the disputed amount as a precondition for an appeal[9]. Furthermore, the High Court has discretionary power in cases of admitting the appeal application involving substantial questions of law. In such instances, taxpayers may challenge the constitutionality of the statute, alleging a violation of their right to access justice.

The lack of judicial members deprives taxpayers of the right to legal certainty and fairness, undermining the primary purpose of advance rulings, which is to ease compliance burdens and prevent unnecessary disputes[10]. States have made contradictory decisions as a result of this arrangement, which has caused confusion for companies operating across borders and led to ambiguous interpretations on the same issue. [11] Right to Legal Certainty The canon of certainty outlined by Adam Smith in his book “An Inquiry into the Causes of the Wealth of Nations” (1776) highlights that the taxation law should be designed transparently and consistently, which facilitates the convenience of taxpayers in its compliance. It acknowledges that the taxpayers must be aware of the amount they are liable to pay, the payment schedule, and the manner of payment.

This indicates that the government should refrain from retrospectively applying an increase in tax liability in taxation legislation and policies. The retrospective applicability of taxation law by increasing the tax liability of taxpayers may create resentment and dissatisfaction among taxpayers, which results in tax evasion. Taxation law should contain the element of certainty regarding how to pay, what to pay, where to pay, when to pay, and in what method to pay[12]. The law and policies of tax should have predictability, clarity, and stability. If there is no clarity, it may lead to different interpretations because of ambiguous clauses. In 2017, the IMF and OECD issued a report appreciating the significance of stability in tax laws and recommended that ambiguity in tax administration poses a significant threat to private investments in the country[13].

This is exemplified by the well-known disputes between multinational corporations such as Vodafone Plc and Cairn Energy Plc (hereinafter referred to as "Companies") and the Government of India[14]. These disputes arose from the retrospective tax amendment introduced in the Finance Act of 2012, which empowered Indian tax authorities to impose taxes on gains from the sale of a foreign company's shares if those shares, directly or indirectly, derive a substantial portion of their value from assets situated in India. The retrospective nature of the amendment caused substantial international concern[15], as it contravened the principles of legal certainty and stability.

In response to the tax demands made under the amended provision, the companies initiated international arbitration proceedings against the Indian government according to their respective Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)[16]. The company contended that India had violated the guarantee of fair and equitable treatment under the BITs. Later, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Vodafone by setting aside the Bombay High Court's decision. In this case, the Court found that the offshore transaction was a legitimate form of foreign direct investment (FDI), which was structured outside the tax jurisdiction of India and was not subject to Indian capital gains tax as a result. According to the ruling, foreign investors must have legal certainty when making offshore investments.

It is also clear that India[17] does not have the jurisdiction to tax these types of transactions, as they do not involve any transfer of capital assets within the country. In consequence, the Indian Tax Authority was not able to tax Vodafone's acquisition of Hutchison's interest through the purchase of shares in CGP, a Cayman Islands company. The Apex court reasoned that the retroactive imposition of a tax burden, without adequate justification, on a transaction that was not taxable when it was imposed had deprived the investors of the ability to structure their activities following the legal consequences of their actions. The tribunals held that the retroactive amendment violated the principle of legal certainty, which is regarded as a fundamental aspect of the Fair and Equitable Treatment standard and, more broadly, the rule of law.

It can be concluded that the principle of legal certainty is unquestionably desirable in the context of tax systems and indeed in the context of economies in general, both for governments and taxpayers. The key to maintaining a stable financial system is to take deliberate steps in this direction[18]. Right to Equality The right to equality is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

It is part of the basic structure and comes under the purview of natural justice principles. It states two principles: equality before the law and equal protection under laws within the territory of India. The recent development made by Gauhati High Court in case National Plasto Moulding v State of Assam[19] while interpreting the legitimacy of section 16(2)(c) and 16(2)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, and Assam Goods and Services Act, 2017 emphasized eligibility criteria for availing input tax credit. This provision outlines that a purchasing dealer can claim an Input Tax Credit (ITC) if the supplier has deposited the applicable tax to the government. It means that the purchasing dealer can only exempt their tax liability using ITC if the supplier has fulfilled their responsibility of depositing the collected tax.

If the supplier fails to do so, the purchasing dealer cannot claim the ITC, even though they may have paid the tax to the supplier. This provision ensures that tax is properly accounted for at each step of the supply chain, and it entrusts the responsibility to the purchaser to ensure that the supplier complies with tax regulations. However, it may lead to a risk factor for the purchaser at risk as the claim of ITC depends on whether the supplier has adhered to regulations and fulfilled their responsibility in depositing tax[20]. The petitioner challenged the above-mentioned eligibility criteria on the grounds of being unduly stringent, irrational, and imposing an unfair burden on them. The purchasers were unjustly penalized because of supplier defaults in tax deposits.

The Gauhati High Court relied on the reasoning of the Delhi High Court in case of Quest Merchandising India (P) Ltd v Government of NCT of Delhi[21] which laid down that the tax laws should be implemented fairly, avoiding disproportionate consequences for bona fide purchasers, and when the selling dealer does not deposit the tax that has been collected, the purchaser dealer should not be penalized as long as they have followed the regulations and acted in good faith. Furthermore, in the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court[22], it was held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be claimed as a right in itself but can be used only when the denial of a legitimate expectation leads to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

In tax administration, constitutional principles, particularly Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, are pertinent because it is necessary to ensure transparency, fairness, and non-arbitrariness. Considering that tax law is an exercise of state power, it should adhere to the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution. According to Article 14, each citizen shall be entitled to equality before the law, requiring that state actions, as well as tax collection, shall be free from arbitrariness or discrimination. Consequently, there is a direct impact on the imposition and recovery of taxes that is directly related to this law, since it ensures that the state doesn’t penalize taxpayers unfairly or impose burdens that are disproportionate to the taxpayer’s behavior.

This is especially relevant in situations where compliance depends on third parties, such as suppliers, who are liable for taxes. The doctrine of legitimate expression emphasizes the significance of non-arbitrariness, and both the state and its agencies must abide by it in the context of contracts and all actions performed by the state. The public interest is the primary goal of public authorities' powers; they are not endowed with unlimited discretion. They are forced by this need to behave properly and adhere to a transparent and equitable approach. Therefore, fairness is a crucial component of the decision-making process in all state operations since individuals have a legitimate expectation to be treated fairly when engaging with the state and its agencies[23].

It is essential to take into account the reasonable expectations of individuals impacted by decision-making to satisfy the non-arbitrariness criterion in state acts. The integrity of the judgment may be compromised, and power abuse may result from ignoring this duty. The arbitrary nature of such a choice might be contested. Although complete elimination of discretion in power exercise is not possible due to practical reasons, the rule of law does permit judicial scrutiny to guarantee that discretion is used appropriately[24]. The doctrine has particular implications in cases where an individual is differentiated by his or her State based on economic criteria, such as when tax law treats agricultural income differently from other types of income. Agricultural income is exempted under section 10(1), and it creates discrimination based on income.

The precedent settled down on the fact that discrimination should not be done based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any other grounds. It can be derived that even this discrimination is done based on income, as the person holding agricultural income is differentiated from the person not holding agricultural income[25]. Thus, treated unequally. By adjusting the basic exemption available to individuals, the current provisions maintain the constitutional validity of not charging tax on agricultural income by withdrawing income tax exemptions for those with agricultural income rather than levying a direct tax on it. By ensuring that the higher income bracket that arises from encompassing agricultural revenue appropriately represents the tax rate on non-agricultural income, this strategy helps to prevent the misuse of the exemption.

Therefore, the government assists in making use of the legal and constitutional flaws. Consequently, the constitutional legitimacy of Entry 82 of the Union List is upheld. Right to Privacy As early as 1948, Kazi Syed Karimuddin[26] introduced an amendment into the law to protect the privacy of individual citizens from unwarranted intrusions by the state into their private lives. The Supreme Court, which later held that evidence obtained through illegal searches may be admissible unless prohibited by law, also recognized a right to privacy[27]. In its landmark decision, the K. S. Puttaswamy[28] case went on to establish the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution's Articles 19 and 21.

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court ruled[29] that disclosing passwords to devices is not protected under the privacy rights of an individual, while the Delhi High Court[30] said that requiring an individual to disclose such information is against the law. The technological advancement that led individuals to carry such sensitive information in their hands via mobile phones does not diminish the constitutional rights that safeguard this information[31]. Infringement of Privacy Rights under Section 138 Recent years have seen a significant increase in privacy concerns, particularly about financial information sharing and use.

In 2020 central government issued a notification[32] “In pursuance of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (I) of Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Central Government hereby specifies "Scheduled Commercial Banks" listed in the Second Schedule of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 for the said clause”. As stipulated in Section 138(1)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Board or authorized income-tax officials may share tax information with other officers, authorities, or bodies notified to the Central Government as necessary in the public interest, as published in the Official Gazette.

Furthermore, the RBI Act, 1934, has a second schedule that lists scheduled commercial banks, which are banks with at least a paid-up capital of five lakh rupees and which have to comply with two criteria: they must operate in the interest of the depositors, and they must be domiciled in India. A foreign bank, a national bank, a private bank, or a cooperative bank is included in this category[33]. Earlier, the scheduled bank had to follow the procedure mentioned under Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in which an application had to be filed with the Income Tax authorities for accessing information[34]. The income tax authorities reviewed and assessed individuals on a case-by-case basis.

Furthermore, As per the rule 3 of The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information)[35] in financial information is covered under the purview of sensitive information and personal data and is therefore exempt from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Supreme Court laid down a three-fold test that operates as an exception to the right to privacy. Section 138(1)(a) fails to meet the three-fold test, which includes legality, a rational connection to its objective and proportionality in its enforcement. Additionally, it lacks any element of public interest[36]. The aforesaid notification permits the sharing of tax information with banks, which could potentially be used for commercial exploitation and data mining.

Tax returns contain sensitive personal information, central to one's right to informational privacy. The dissemination of such data would inevitably result in a violation of the right to privacy. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in this data-sharing process undermines principles of fairness. As a result of the notification permitting information sharing with commercial banks under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, it is necessary to consider legal principles related to privacy rights and public interest to refine the argument that Section 138 violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to note that Article 21 does not guarantee a right to privacy in its entirety. According to the Supreme Court of India, K. S. Puttaswamy v.

Union of India (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right, but it also stated that reasonable limitations can be justified by legitimate state goals if these goals are proportionate to them. Thus, Section

138 contributes to the greater good of society by making the financial sector more transparent,

accountable, and compliant with existing laws. Section 138 strengthens financial oversight and ensures economic integrity by allowing controlled information sharing. Tax-related information should be made available to specific authorities, including commercial banks, to identify and counter financial crimes such as money laundering, tax evasion, and fraud that would otherwise go undetected. To maintain public trust in financial institutions, critical information should be withheld under the guise of privacy. Consequently, we encourage corruption and undermine public trust by creating an untrustworthy environment.

Therefore, Section 138 provides an exception to individual privacy rights to make notification permitting information sharing with commercial banks under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act require consideration of legal principles related to privacy rights and public interest, containing economic security, and it is proportionate to the state's goal. Right to Be Informed, Assisted, and Heard The right to be informed, assisted, and heard upholds the principle of transparency and fairness, granting individuals unhindered access to essential information for the compliance of tax laws. The right to be informed and assisted is derived from the canon of simplicity, which ensures clarity and accessibility in administrative guidance, which mitigates complexities.

It ensures that the government provides relevant information concerning the filing of a return of income[37]and the method of accountability for computation[38], which facilitates taxpayers’ compliance and helps to avoid corruption. The Income Tax Department and the GST Network (GSTN) offer tools and programs through frequently asked questions and instructional materials to make tax rules easier to understand and promote transparency. In tax law, the rule of Audi Alteram partem plays an important role in constituting natural justice. This rule ensures that no individual should be condemned without being heard, which is a fundamental requirement of fair conduct imposed on quasi-judicial authorities. This rule mandates that a person likely to be affected by a decision must be granted an opportunity to present their case by issuing notice.

As per Section 73(2) of the Finance Act 1994, Central Excise Officers must determine the amount of service tax owed by or incorrectly refunded to the person to whom notice is served under Subsection 1 after taking into account any representations made by that person, provided that the amount is not greater than that specified in the notice. The person must then pay the amount so determined. The statutory authorities will decide the responsibility based on the assessee's representation. The statutory authorities will decide the responsibility based on the assessee's representation. The application of the principle right to be heard is nuanced and adaptable. The scope and extent of this duty depend on the nature of the inquiry, the legal framework governing it, the structure of the authority conducting it, the rights in question, and the possible implications of the decision.

The procedure for appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is established by Section 250, sub-section (1)[39] requires the appellate authority to specify a date and location for the hearing. However, the faceless scheme does not have a physical location for hearings, rendering the "place of hearing" provision obsolete. Similarly, Sub-section (2) grants appellants the right to be heard in person, but the faceless scheme, which is intended to eliminate direct interaction between the Commissioner (Appeals) and appellants, effectively renders the "right to be heard in person" redundant in this context.

In light of the Supreme Court's directive in the Kanpur Syndicate case[40], there is no justification for the Commissioner (Appeals) to refrain from providing a draft appeal decision to the appellant, allowing the appellant to identify any objections or errors in the prepared document. This will further reduce unnecessary litigation on non-issues and prevent baseless grounds from advancing to higher appellate tribunals[41]. As part of the next chapter, a cross-jurisdictional analysis of taxpayer rights is presented, providing a structured comparison of the protection and enforcement of key rights under the legal systems of different jurisdictions. The focus of the next chapter is on identifying the differences and similarities in the legal protections afforded to taxpayers across India and Australia and between India and Latin American countries.

Through comparative analyses of these two countries, this chapter aims to clarify the variances and similarities in legal protections. Furthermore, the chapter examines how India's legal framework aligns with international norms and where discrepancies may exist by utilizing findings from the OECD report. Additionally, this analysis contributes to a comprehensive understanding of tax equity and taxpayer experiences globally through a deeper understanding of legal variation. India vs Australia In Australia, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has enacted the Taxpayers' Charter to encourage equitable and considerate treatment of taxpayers, which is strikingly similar to the Taxpayer Charter in India. The focus on simplifying compliance, enforceability, and taxpayer support is one of the main areas where Australia's charter varies.

An important aspect of the ATO's charter relates to privacy and confidentiality, which is governed by strict protocols that adhere to the Australian Privacy Principles[42]. The ATO takes the unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information seriously, and serious penalties are imposed on employees who violate privacy obligations. In India, the constitution commits to protecting the privacy of taxpayers. However, there are fewer specific safeguards for protecting taxpayer privacy, and there is no guarantee that breaches of confidentiality will lead to immediate accountability. According to the Australian Charter, complaints are handled and reviewed in a transparent and accessible manner, with straightforward options for escalation.

Taxpayers can escalate issues internally within the ATO or externally via the Ombudsman and have access to independent review bodies like the AAT for unresolved cases. Even though the Indian charter encourages transparency and complaint resolution, the administrative burden and procedural delays often hinder effective redress, particularly when addressing complex problems. Recently, Australia's Stage 3 tax cuts were changed in an attempt to shift more benefits to lower- and middle-income earners, adjusting the previous tax relief plan that disproportionately benefited individuals with higher incomes[43]. As a result, these adjustments also break a campaign promise, signaling a tension between preserving political commitments and responding to fiscal realities.

According to the revised Stage 3 tax cuts, low- and middleincome earners will receive a greater benefit than was originally proposed, while high-income earners will receive a slightly smaller benefit. Income inequality is likely to be reduced by this shift. The benefits for low-income earners remain modest, however, and may not have a significant impact on the cost of living. In the long term, wealth disparities may persist if higher-income earners continue to enjoy substantial benefits compared to lower-income earners. In addition to offering immediate relief to low-income workers, the new tax cuts reduce the tax burden incrementally in each paycheck, in contrast to the former Low and Middle Tax Offset (LMITO), which provided a lump-sum rebate at tax time.

Although ongoing savings by reducing withholdings can benefit workers year-round, LMITO boosted workers' annual income more significantly, which may be more manageable for spending on one-time expenses. Taxation in Australia differs significantly from that in India in several areas, including overall tax burden, tax mix, and treatment of corporations. It is noted that Australia has a relatively low tax-to-GDP ratio, approximately 31. 6%, compared to India, where tax burdens are relatively high[44]. Accordingly, Australia's overall tax structure is likely to present less economic drag than India's. A further consideration is that Australia does not impose wealth, inheritance, or gift taxes, which contrasts with India's broader array of wealth-related taxes, which may affect capital accumulation differently in the two nations[45].

Despite Australia's high corporate tax rate, its depreciation, losses, and goodwill policies are less favorable, presenting challenges for capital recovery[46]. Comparatively, India's corporate tax regime is also highly taxed, but certain capital expenditures may be more favorable. The Australian government also benefits from a simplified Goods and Services Tax (GST), which is lower than the average rate in the OECD and lower than the GST in India, which can reach as much as 28% on certain goods[47]. Australian GST rates are significantly lower than those in India, thereby enhancing consumer purchasing power. As for compliance costs, Australia has a relatively low administrative burden largely because of its streamlined tax system. Contrary to this, India's multilayered tax structure often results in higher compliance costs[48].

Although Australia enjoys certain tax efficiencies, such as a lower GST and reduced compliance burdens, both countries are burdened with high corporate and income tax rates. India vs Latin America India has made significant strides in enhancing transparency within its tax processes, particularly through the digitalization of tax filing systems. The Indian government provides taxpayers with easy access to information on tax liabilities, online status tracking, and e-filing services, which collectively enhance transparency. Furthermore, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has introduced a Taxpayer Charter to provide transparency, promptness, and impartiality in the administration of taxes. Transparency varies widely in South America. Brazil, for example, has installed online portals and systems for e-filing tax returns.

Nevertheless, it is often difficult for countries such as Argentina and Chile to access and understand their tax obligations due to bureaucratic complexity and regional disparities[49]. Transparency efforts are indeed improving, particularly with the adoption of digital technology, but these improvements are inconsistent due to complex regional administrations[50]. The Government of India has signed Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAs) with numerous countries, including several in South America, to prevent its citizens and businesses from being taxed twice on the same income. Through these agreements, Indian taxpayers can claim credits or exemptions to offset taxes paid in foreign jurisdictions, which facilitates crossborder trade and investment. Although they have a smaller network than India, South American nations also have DTAs.

Mostly with important trading partners, countries like Brazil, Chile, and Argentina have treaties to prevent double taxation. Foreign trade can be difficult for inhabitants of South America due to the region's fragmented tax system and small number of DTAs, which frequently results in tax inefficiencies and increased compliance costs. The increase in tax compliance is challenging because of the different tax rules at the federal, state, and municipal levels of government. This complexity may make unintentional noncompliance more likely, especially for individuals and small businesses. In Latin America, tax expenditures—such as deductions, exemptions, and lower rates—are frequently examined for their regressive impacts, as they tend to disproportionately advantage higher-income groups.

In response, several nations have started cutting back on or reassessing these expenditures to make sure they don't undermine fairness objectives. They also regularly provide comprehensive studies to evaluate the socioeconomic effects of these programs[51]. On the other hand, India gives less public information on the distribution and effects of these tax benefits, even though it too offers several tax deductions and exemptions, especially in the area of personal income tax. Even while accountability in India is getting better, it is hard to tell if these rules unintentionally favor some groups over others, which might jeopardize fair treatment, because there is a lack of thorough data on the beneficiaries[52]. To address economic disparity, Latin America has recently turned its attention to direct, progressive taxation.

As a result, nations like Argentina, Brazil, and Peru have raised income and property taxes according to income-earning [53]. This strategy seeks to lessen the regressive impacts of indirect taxes, which disproportionately affect lower-income groups, and balance tax payments across income levels. On the other hand, although India has implemented progressive income taxation, it remains heavily dependent on indirect taxes like GST, which can be more burdensome for lower-income individuals since they are less responsive to income. In contrast to the planned shift toward progressive taxation in Latin America, India's efforts have not yet eliminated its reliance on indirect taxation.

OECD REPORT The report titled ‘Comparative Information on OECD and Other Advanced Emerging Economies’ demonstrates the comparative review of tax administration systems across OECD and developing nations, emphasizing efficiency, transparency, and taxpayer participation. Further, it discusses that 88% of the participating countries have framed laws to protect taxpayers' rights, like the right to legal certainty, the right to privacy, the right to be heard, the right to appeal, etc. The report also mentions the Taxpayers' complaint procedure in two segments, which are internal and external mechanisms. India has both specific internal and external mechanisms to deal with complaints of taxpayers.

For the Internal Mechanism Income Tax Ombudsman, which was established under the 2010 Income Tax Ombudsman Guidelines[54], this office handles complaints about administrative problems, delays, and noncompliance with tax procedures. Moreover, taxpayers may lodge complaints and resolve them through the ‘Aayakar Sampark Kendra’ and other internet portals like ‘e-Nivaran’. In case of an external mechanism, appeals can be filed at the High Court and the Supreme Court. Under certain conditions, complaints against administrative misconduct or corruption in tax administration may be filed before Lokayukta institutions for a redressal mechanism. India does not have an independent internal mechanism for taxpayers’ complaints, unlike New Zealand, Russia, etc. Data security measures are essential to maintain taxpayers' trust.

Yet, the report emphasizes the need for cost-effective security solutions, as overspending could impact other operational areas. This underscores the ongoing balance between safeguarding taxpayer data and efficiently managing available resources[55]. Suggestions

1. Section 80(3) This section allows individuals to claim deductions in specified financial

institutions, so here potential changes include expanding of list of eligible persons or increasing the deduction limit to enhance saving, which will be cost-effective for taxpayers.

2. Section 250 (Procedure in Appeal)- the amendment Under the faceless system, there is

no need to indicate a "place of hearing" as required by sub-section (1). The "place" for faceless appeals will be the safe online platform made available by the Income Tax Department, where all procedural actions will be carried out virtually.

3. The appellant is entitled to the right to be heard in a virtual hearing. Using the specified

online platform, the appellant may choose to appear through an authorized representative or submit written arguments. If the appellate authority considers that a personal hearing is required, it will be held by video conference or any other electronic method that guarantees direct and safe contact.

4. To prevent unlawful use or disclosure of taxpayer data, explicit regulations should be

put in place that limit access to personal financial data to authorized personnel only for certain tax-related activities. By adhering to contemporary privacy standards, protecting taxpayer privacy, and boosting confidence in the tax system, we will ensure that people feel secure in sharing with tax authorities the information they need.

5. India ought to establish a Taxman Ombudsman to enhance accountability, transparency,

and equity within the taxation framework. This system would offer taxpayers an accessible and economical platform to resolve complaints concerning harassment, delays, or abuse of power by tax officials. It would encourage trust and voluntary adherence by safeguarding taxpayer rights, which leads to an efficient and equitable tax administration. Following worldwide best practices, restoring and fortifying the previous ombudsman system would help bring India's tax governance into compliance with international norms and boost its legitimacy. Conclusion It is the right of taxpayers to be treated fairly and reasonably, which includes certainty, dignity, privacy, and equity. This results in significant discontent or a broader crisis when such principles are compromised, leading to public dissatisfaction.

It is imperative to maintain these standards for public confidence in the system, as failure to do so will lead to adverse consequences for both the government and taxpayers. While Indian and international norms are comparable, there are certain differences as well as advancements made to enhance taxpayer accountability and rights. The Indian Taxation charter is more significant in commitment rather than enforceability compared with other countries like Australia. The tax department should be mandated to maintain and update an easily navigable internet site to provide taxpayers with accurate and explicit information on tax laws, duties, and government initiatives. Transparency regarding tax computation, assessment, and collection procedures would be ensured via this site, which would provide thorough tax information in understandable language.

It will increase taxpayers' awareness of their rights and responsibilities, which facilitates the compliance procedure and accountability.

ENDNOTES:

[1] [1994] 73 Taxman 231. [2] Income Tax Act 1961, s 12AA. [3] Income Tax Act 1961, s 80 G. [4] Income Tax Act 1961, s. s264. [5] Income Tax Act 1961, s 246A [6] Income Tax Act 1961, s 253. [7] Harish Wadhwa v ITO Bangalore [2021] 126 taxmann.com 156 (Karnataka HC).

[8] Income Tax Act 1961, s 245S. [9] Vivek Malhotra, ‘Appeals Under Income Tax Act, 1961’ (Taxguru, 1 May 2018) accessed 26 October 2024. [10] R Ranga Priya Analysis of Appeal and Revisions for Taxpayers Under Income Tax Act, 1961’ (Taxguru, 19 March 2024) accessed 26 October 2024 [11] Roopashi Khatri, ‘Role of the judiciary in Indian tax policy – an evaluation of the efficiency of judicial outcomes’ (2019) 12(2) NUJS Law Review 1 [12] Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (S M Soares ed, MetaLibri [13] OECD (2017), Tax Administration 2017: Comparative Information on OECD and Other Advanced and Emerging Economies, OECD Publishing, Paris, [14] Sanjiv Kumar Chaudhary, ‘Government withdraws the retrospective application of 'indirect transfer' related provisions – is it too late?

(Taxmann, 26 August 2021) [15] Nayantara Narayan and Harshvardhan Korada, 'From Vodafone to Cairn and Back: A Taxing Journey Towards Making India a Global Investment Hotspot' (Mondaq, 2 September 2021) accessed 12 November 2024 [16]Malika Tiwari, ‘Retrospective Taxation in India – An Account of Legislative Power and Judicial Control’ (Taxmann, January 2021) accessed 26 October 2024 [17] Vodafone International Holdings B. V. v Union of India [2012] 17 taxmann. com 202 (SC) 92. [18] Aashima Sawhney, '[Vidhispeaks] Certainty of Tax Legislation in India' (Bar and Bench, 18 September 2021) accessed 12 November 2024. [19] [2024] WP(C) No 2863 [20] Pulkit Agarwal, ‘Gauhati High Court's Landmark Ruling on Input Tax Credit: Detailed Analysis’ (Taxmann, August 2024) accessed 26 October 2024 [21] [2017] 87 taxmann. com 179 (Del), para 54 [22] Union of India v. Lt. Col. P. K.

Choudhary (2016) 4 SCC 236 [23] Attorney General for New South Wales v. Quinn [1990] 64 Aust LJR [24] Food Corpn. of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries [Civil Appeal No. 4731 of 1992, dated 3- 11-1992]. [25] Deep Agarwal, ‘Rethinking Agricultural Income Taxation in India: Challenges, Realities, and Reforms’ (Taxmann, August 2024) accessed 26 October 2024. [26] ‘Right to Privacy: Court in Review’ (Supreme Court Observer, July 2017) accessed 26 October 2024 [27] MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) 1 S. C. R. 1077 [28] Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) and Another v. Union of India and Others (2017) 10 SCC 1 [29] Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 5032 [30] CBI v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 48 [31] Riley v California 573 US 373 (2014), 19-27. [32] F. No. 22S/136/2020-IT A. II Notification No. 71 /2020 dated 31. 08.

2020 [33] ‘CBDT Specifies Scheduled Commercial Banks for Disclosure of Information Respecting Assessees (Taxscan, 10 July 2020) accessed 13 November 2024 [34] Sudipta Bhattacharjee, Harsh Makhija, ‘Right To Privacy As A Source For Additional Procedural Safeguards For Taxpayers' Vis A Vis Search And Seizure Operations Under GST In India’ ( Mondaq, 6 April 2022) accessed 26 October 2024 [35] The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules 2011, r 3, Notification New Delhi, 11 April 2011, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Information Technology [36] Chirag Singla, ‘Right to Privacy Vis-à-Vis Tax Information’ (SCC OnLine, 15 November 2020) accessed 26 October 2024 [37] Income Tax Act 1961, s 139(1) [38] Income Tax Act 1961, s 145 [39] Income Tax Act 1961, s 250(1) [40] Gopal Nathani, Raji Nathani, ‘Revamp faceless appeal procedure’ (Taxmann, October 14, 2022) accessed 26 October 2024 [41] Ibid 40.

[42] ‘Rights of Australian Tax Payers’ ( H&R Block Australia) accessed 26 October 2024 [43] Daniel Ziffer, ‘It's not just unfair but immoral': Why experts say Australia's tax system is broken and what can be done to fix it’ (ABC News, 12 February 2024) accessed 26 October 2024 [44] Commonwealth of Australia, International Comparison of Australia's Taxes (2006) xvii, xviii) [45] Ibid(xxx) [46] Ibid (xxiii, 133) [47] Ibid (239) [48] Ibid (383) [49]Marcelo S Bergman, ‘Tax Reforms and Tax Compliance: The Divergent Paths of Chile and Argentina’ (2003)

35 J Lat Amer Stud 615.

[50] Ibid [51] KPMG, A Look Inside Tax Departments in Latin America and How They Are Evolving (2019) 14. [52] Ibid [53] Michael Hanni and Ricardo Martner, ‘Inequality, Taxation, and Public Transfers in Latin America’ in Philip G. Alston and Nikki R. Reisch (eds), Tax, Inequality, and Human Rights (Oxford Press 2019) [54] M Govindarajan, 'Incometax Ombudsman Guidelines, 2010 - An Overview' (Tax Management India, 2 July 2010) accessed 12 November 2024. [55] OECD (2019), "Table A.123 - Taxpayer rights", in Tax Administration 2019: Comparative Information on OECD and other Advanced and Emerging Economies, OECD

Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5387ce8e-en