Section 4B of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Spent more than collection for TDPs rehabilitation: AAG
ISLAMABAD: The Additional Attorney General for Pakistan (AAG) informed that the federation has spent more than what it collected for the rehabilitation of temporary displaced persons (TDPs) under Section 4B of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
A five-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Tuesday, heard the appeals of 354 taxpayers against Section 4B, which was inserted in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through the Finance Act 2015.
AAG Aamir Rehman, on behalf of the Ministry of Finance, submitted that Rs114 billion were collected in terms of Section 4B, while the federation spent Rs117 billion on the rehabilitation of the TDPs, adding the estimated total cost of rehabilitation of TDPs was Rs80 billion.
SC CB asks whether super tax is a 'tax' or 'fee'
He stated that super tax, collected from affluent and rich individuals, association of persons, companies earning income above Rs500 million and the banks, is deposited into consolidate funds and from there through divisible pool is distributed among the federation and the provinces.
The AAG said after the distribution under Article 160 of the Constitution the federal government from its share of 42.5 per cent spent the amount on the rehabilitation of the TDPs.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned why super tax was imposed. Asma Hamid, FBR counsel in appeals against Lahore High Court (LHC) judgment, explained that if this amount (Rs80 billion) was spent from the existing budget amount then the government had to divert money from other projects, which could have affected them, therefore, super tax was imposed.
Advocate Raza Rabbani, who also represented FBR in appeals against the Sindh High Court (SHC) judgment, argued that this levy has been imposed on income of every person specified in Division IIA of Part-I of the First Schedule, the Ordinance, 2001. It is a separate charge of super tax, in addition to the income tax, charged under section 4, the Ordinance, 2001, where a distinct mechanism for assessment, collection and recovery is provided. Both income tax and the super tax are imposed on the income, he added.
Regarding argument that the tax levied under Section 4B is not tax as legislative procedure laid down in Article 73 is not followed, Raza Rabbani argued that in some federations of the world, Money Bills are passed by both Houses, in other federations Money Bills are passed by the Lower House of the Parliament, which comprises directly elected representatives of people.
He said that Section 4B is a special tax and has been levied for a special purpose, and by virtue of the definition of taxation given in Article 260 of the constitution the parliament was well within its competence to impose such a tax.
Raza Rabbani also contended that Entry 47 of the Fourth Schedule empowers the legislature to impose more than one tax on the income of a person. The term tax on income in Entry 47 effectively nullifies the arguments with regard to double taxation, adding the constitution does not impose a prohibition on double taxation but in fact permits the levy of more than one tax on income.
He emphasised that before insertion of Section 4B, there was no provision for super tax in the Ordinance 2001. However, there is no bar on Parliament to insert, by way of an amendment in the law. He said that deliberately, a confusion is being created with a play of words that a tax has to have a characteristic of a 'general purpose', whereas, the law developed is for the 'general revenue' and 'public purpose', adding there are a string of judgments in which this characteristics, for 'public purpose' is discussed.
Raza Rabbani has concluded his arguments.
The case is adjourned until May 19.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Proposed sweeping powers for FBR will cripple economy: PBF
LAHORE: Pakistan Business Forum (PBF) has strongly denounced the Federal Budget 2025; calling it a direct assault on the business community and warning that the sweeping powers proposed for the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) will cripple the economy and trigger widespread unrest if not immediately reversed. Speaking to the media, Muhammad Naseer Malik, Chairman (Central Punjab) of the PBF, said the Finance Bill introduces a range of unprecedented and undemocratic enforcement clauses that violate the principles of fair taxation and due process. He warned that these proposals will create an environment of fear and intimidation, where businesses operate under constant threat of legal action without the protection of proper checks and balances. PBF highlighted specific provisions of the Finance Bill 2025 that it says are particularly damaging to business confidence and fundamental rights: Section 37AA allows for the arrest of individuals without a warrant, solely on the basis of suspicion of tax fraud, paving the way for arbitrary detentions and harassment. Section 14AE empowers FBR officials to seize business premises and property without judicial oversight or meaningful safeguards. The Section 37B authorizes the detention of businesspersons for up to 14 days, with possible extension by a magistrate, even before the conclusion of an investigation. Further, Section 11E permits FBR to make tax assessments and initiate recovery based purely on suspicion, bypassing the need for a complete inquiry or verifiable evidence. Section 33 (13 & 13A) introduces 10-year prison terms and Rs10 million fines for vaguely defined 'tax fraud,' which the PBF warns could criminalize genuine business errors or disputes. Section 32B grants private auditors quasi-legal authority, allowing them to act with powers that blur the line between auditing and prosecution — a move PBF considers both unconstitutional and dangerous. 'These provisions do not promote tax compliance — they institutionalize fear, harassment, and unchecked power,' Malik said. 'They will push the business community to the edge, and many will be forced to shut down operations or move abroad.' The PBF also criticized the existing tax structure, pointing out that the effective tax burden on businesses has soared to between 50% and 60%, the highest in the region. This includes a 25% corporate tax, 25% tax on dividends, super tax, sales tax, withholding taxes, and high import duties. According to the Forum, these combined pressures make investment, expansion, and job creation impossible under the current fiscal regime. In addition to demanding the complete withdrawal of the above clauses, the PBF is calling for a reduction in interest rates to 6% to support business recovery and economic growth. The Forum believes that a more balanced tax policy - coupled with targeted reforms and incentives - could double public spending on education and health without suffocating the productive economy. Naseer Malik also warned if the Finance Bill 2025 is passed in its current form, Pakistan's economy will face irreversible damage. If the government thinks it can collect taxes without taxpayers, it is free to try. And if the FBR believes it can run an economy without businesses, let it go ahead; the consequences will be clear soon enough.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Peshawar's cosmetic firm: FBR orders licence cancellation for alleged tax evasion
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has taken a major enforcement action against a cosmetic company of Peshawar for alleged tax evasion and also ordered licence cancellation and declared production, stocking and sales of its products as illegal. In a decisive move to crack down on tax evasion, the FBR has intensified enforcement actions across the country through its Large Taxpayer Offices (LTOs), Regional Tax Offices (RTOs), and Corporate Tax Offices. The FBR has also directed its field formations to maximize enforcement actions during June 2025 to meet the assigned targets. Acting on the FBR directive, the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) in Peshawar has been formally instructed to immediately revoke the manufacturing license issued to M/s Forvil Cosmetics a company blacklisted for allegedly evading taxes to the tune of millions. The FBR has not only declared the production, storage and sale of this company's products illegal but has also prohibited any other firm or third party from manufacturing, stocking, or selling goods under the trademark 'Bio Amla' or any similar name. The banned products include Bio Amla Shampoo, Bio Nikhhar Cream, Seven Day Cream, Prima Hair Color among others. According to official documents, the FBR has explicitly directed PSQCA to neither issue a new license nor renew any existing one under the said brand, including any entity associated with Forvil Cosmetics. Following these instructions, PSQCA Peshawar has given the company a seven-day deadline to submit a clearance certificate from FBR, valid sales tax registration, recent income tax returns, proof of tax payments, and certified compliance documents. Failure to comply will result in legal action, PSQCA letter said. In a letter sent to PSQCA, the FBR revealed that Forvil Cosmetics registered in Peshawar. The case is also under investigation by the Directorate General Intelligence & Investigation - Inland Revenue. Sources confirmed that the FBR has launched similar crackdowns on tax defaulters in other cities including Karachi and Lahore. In Lahore under the supervision of Chief Commissioner of Corporate Tax Office it was discovered that certain PSQCA officials may have colluded to issue a license to the blacklisted company without securing necessary recovery or informing higher authorities. In response a special team led by Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue Muhammad Qamar Munhas was formed, which promptly wrote to PSQCA and recommended canceling the license issued for the seized trademark. The FBR documents show that the company owes Rs. 570 million (including surcharge and penalties) as of October 2022. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has upheld the assessment order issued against the company. The company has ceased operations for several years. Its sales tax registration has also been canceled and blacklisted. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Investment in SCRAs: 12-month holding period proposed for tax concession: FBR chief
ISLAMABAD: Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) Chairman Rashid Mahmood Langrial Saturday said the FBR has proposed a holding period of 12 months for availing concessionary tax regime on investment made in Special Convertible Rupee Accounts (SCRA) under Finance Bill (2025-26). While review of Finance Bill (2025-26) on Saturday at the National Assembly Standing Committee on Finance, Chairman of the Finance Committee Naveed Qamar said that the condition of 'holding period' would discourage investment in the SCRA. The government should set 3-6 months holding period for making investment in the SCRA. The FBR chairman endorsed the viewpoint of Naveed Qamar. The FBR chairman said that we can propose six months holding period. The FBR has already discussed the proposal with the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP). In case of three months proposal, this should be subject to the approval of the Federal Cabinet. FBR directed to immediately stop sealing Tier-1 retail outlets MNA Mirza Ikhtiar Baig stated that the government must watch interest of the overseas Pakistanis making investment in the SCRA. Later, an official of the SBP joined the meeting online from Karachi. Muhammad Ali Malik, executive director SBP informed the committee that the proposed amendment has nothing to do with the Roshan Digital Account. The proposed change is related to the SCRA and not Roshan Digital Account. There should be some limitation of holding period for keeping investment in the SCRAs. We want to discourage short-term investments in the SCRAs. If they keep investment above one year period, the concessional tax regime should be applicable. To avoid volatility in market, the holding period should be one year for the purpose of making investment in the said accounts. The tax advantage should be given to those investors who would keep their investment for at least one year. According to the assessment of the SBP, there would be no immediate or significant impact on investment in case one year holding period is introduced, the SBP official added. The finance committee proposed six months holding period for availing concessionary tax regime on the SCRAs investments. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
