LHC sets aside three Punjab govt notifications
LHC Justice Asim Hafeez declared illegal and set aside three notifications of the Punjab government regarding social security contribution.
The petitioners had challenged the notifications, contending that core provisions of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 had been made ineffective.
"I refrain from attributing any mala fide to the government for not performing its functions, though delay caused in performance of obligations has inflicted harm to the class of employees," the judge observed.
Justice Hafeez observed that the situation could be cured either by exercising powers in terms of Section 71 of the ordinance or amending the law, if the benchmark had to be linked with minimum wages — incidentally cure through notifications was not a solution but an attempt seeped in illegality.
He observed that the judicial review jurisdiction could not be stretched to address the situation.
"Miseries of the employees can be addressed upon prompt action by the government. Courts cannot compensate for an apparent inaction on the part of the government in guise of interpreting a beneficial legislation," the court observed.
The counsel for petitioners argued that the contribution was solely determinable on the basis of wage notified by the government in terms of Section 71 and not otherwise; notwithstanding fixing of minimum wages under any other dispensation, be it the Punjab Minimum Wage Act 2019 or otherwise.
The counsel contended that invalidity of the notifications was an obvious consequence if sections 2(f), 20 and 71 of the ordinance were strictly enforced.
A counsel submitted that the notification of September 20, 2024 and those preceding it had been issued in accordance with Rule 4(3) of the Provincial Employees Social Security (Contributions) Rules, 1966, emphasising that determination of minimum wages, notwithstanding the nomenclature of statutes, provides legitimate basis for determining payable contribution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
3 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC rules coercive tax recovery not allowed without due notice
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that Section 140 of the Tax Ordinance, 2001 does not permit immediate coercive recovery in the absence of a date set in the notice. 'Section 140 of the Ordinance expressly provides that the party holding money on behalf of the taxpayer must be afforded a notice with a due date to discharge its liability,' said a judgment, authored by Justice Ayesha. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Munib Akhtar and comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Shahid, on Monday, delivered a judgment. Justice Shahid found reasons of Justice Ayesha meticulously articulated with clarity and precision, but to further enhance the understanding of these reasons, wrote his additional note. Amendments to orders for accuracy: Commissioner IR has powers under Sec 221(1) of IT law: SC The judgment said the section requires the Commissioner to set a date in the notice for recovery purposes, hence, the requirement of the Rule 210 C (3) of the Income Tax Recovery Rules, 2002 for immediate recovery is against the scheme of Section 140 of the Ordinance, adding 'Rule 210C is contrary to the requirements of Section 140 of the Ordinance.' The judgment further stated; 'It is settled law that rules are subordinate or delegated legislation, framed under a statute and, therefore, subservient to the statute itself and must yield where there is any inconsistency.' The Court observed that the language of Section 140 of the Ordinance does not envisage immediate or mechanical recovery rather the provision contemplates that the Commissioner will issue notice and will give a reasonable timeframe for the purpose of recovery. 'The requirement of notice before recovery is not merely statutory but reflects the broader guarantees of due process and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, as well as the right to dignity under Article 14.' The judgment said that the courts have consistently upheld that even in fiscal matters, recovery must be carried out in a manner that respects the individual's dignity and legal safeguards. 'Consequently, even where the law allows coercive recovery, it must be carried out in a way that preserves the dignity of the taxpayer.' The Respondent in CPLA No.3578 of 2024 is Pakistan LNG Limited whose income tax return for the year 2020 was amended in terms of order dated 15.03.2021 under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, raising a demand of Rs2,928,517,260 for recovery of tax due. On the same date, notice under Section 137(2) of the Ordinance was issued informing the taxpayer of the amount due. The Respondent challenged the amended assessment order before the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) (CIR Appeals) which appeal was decided on 09.03.2022 and subsequently uploaded on the web portal of the FBR (i.e., IRIS) at 3:28 pm. On the same date, at 4:00 pm, notice under Section 140 of the Ordinance was issued for immediate recovery in terms thereof. The Respondent in CPLA No.4598 of 2024 is Serene Air Private Limited who is a withholding agent and who statedly did not fulfill its obligations for the tax year 2020. Resultantly, proceedings in terms of Section 161 read with Section 205 of the Ordinance were decided on 31.03.2022. On the same date, notices under Section 137(2) of the Ordinance were issued raising a demand of Rs1,883,917,790 for recovery of withholding tax. The respondent filed an appeal before the CIR Appeals which was decided on 11.05.2023 at 1:56 pm. On the same date, notices under Section 140 of the Ordinance were issued to the banks for immediate recovery at 10:30 pm. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court stresses taxpayer dignity in recovery process
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) must preserve the dignity of taxpayers while undertaking tax recovery measures. A nine-page judgment authored by Justice Ayesha Malik, dismissing FBR's petition against a high court order, noted that a notice that seeks recovery on the same date as its issuance would defeat the very objective of setting out a date and would render the legal safeguard meaningless. "Yet another aspect that is of significance is the constitutional underpinning of Section 140 of the Ordinance." The ruling observed that the requirement of notice before recovery is not merely statutory but reflects the broader guarantees of due process and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, as well as the right to dignity under Article 14. Courts have consistently upheld that even in fiscal matters, recovery must be carried out in a manner that respects the individual's dignity and legal safeguards. Consequently, even where the law allows coercive recovery, it must be carried out in a way that preserves the dignity of the taxpayer, The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench of the apex court, led by Justice Munib Akhtar, which examined two core questions: whether an FBR commissioner can demand immediate payment on the same day a notice is issued under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, or whether the ordinance requires a future date for compliance. FBR's position was that immediate recovery is permissible under Section 140, with no obligation to issue a subsequent notice or provide a specific payment date. However, the judgment held that Section 140 does not permit immediate coercive recovery in the absence of a due date. When interpreted in context, the provision requires that any party holding money on behalf of the taxpayer be issued a notice that clearly specifies a deadline for discharging liability. In his additional note, Justice Shahid Waheed said that a substantial question before the bench was the intersection of tax law and the rights of taxpayers. "In a legal framework that espouses fundamental rightssuch as the right to a fair trial, access to justice, right to dignity, and due process," he noted. He posed a critical question: whether there is any justifiable reason to uphold a culture of authoritative dominance in tax collection? "This inquiry challenges existing norms that often prioritise tax recovery above the rights and protections guaranteed to taxpayers, potentially undermining the very essence of justice. It also invites a thorough examination of the delicate balance that must be upheld between the efficient recovery of tax debts, as mandated by law, and the imperative to protect the rights of those being taxed." Justice Waheed further reflected on the spirit of Sections 137, 138 and 140, likening the ideal recovery process to that of a honeybee: "When delving into the provisions of Sections 137, 138, and 140, it becomes evident that the law prescribes a recovery process that, much like a honey bee gathering nectar from flowers without causing pain to the plant, mandates that taxation officers conduct tax collection and recovery in a manner that ensures: (a) the treatment of taxpayer with dignity and respect, (b) strict adherence to established legal protocols and procedures, and (c) the provision of transparent guidance and explanations to taxpayers." Outlining the procedural journey, he noted: "How is it so? This becomes clearer when we break down the stages involved in the imposition of tax, which consist of three phases. The first phase involves the declaration of tax liability, stating the taxpayer's financial obligations." Subsequently, the second phase encompasses the assessment process, detailing the exact sum that the taxpayer is legally obligated to pay. "Finally, if the taxpayer fails to fulfil this obligation voluntarily, the third phase introduces the recovery methods to be employed." Underscoring the primacy of dignity, he stressed: "The right to dignity is the most central of all fundamental rights, as it is the source from which all other rights are derived. The Ordinance aims to strike a balance between ensuring tax recovery and upholding taxpayer dignity. The recovery process executed in these cases disregarded this balance."
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SC stresses taxpayer dignity in recovery process
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) must preserve the dignity of taxpayers while undertaking tax recovery measures. A nine-page judgment authored by Justice Ayesha Malik, dismissing FBR's petition against a high court order, noted that a notice that seeks recovery on the same date as its issuance would defeat the very objective of setting out a date and would render the legal safeguard meaningless. 'Yet another aspect that is of significance is the constitutional underpinning of Section 140 of the Ordinance.' The ruling observed that the requirement of notice before recovery is not merely statutory but reflects the broader guarantees of due process and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, as well as the right to dignity under Article 14. Courts have consistently upheld that even in fiscal matters, recovery must be carried out in a manner that respects the individual's dignity and legal safeguards. Consequently, even where the law allows coercive recovery, it must be carried out in a way that preserves the dignity of the taxpayer. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench of the apex court, led by Justice Munib Akhtar, which examined two core questions: whether an FBR commissioner can demand immediate payment on the same day a notice is issued under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, or whether the ordinance requires a future date for compliance. FBR's position was that immediate recovery is permissible under Section 140, with no obligation to issue a subsequent notice or provide a specific payment date. However, the judgment held that Section 140 does not permit immediate coercive recovery in the absence of a due date. When interpreted in context, the provision requires that any party holding money on behalf of the taxpayer be issued a notice that clearly specifies a deadline for discharging liability. In his additional note, Justice Shahid Waheed said that a substantial question before the bench was the intersection of tax law and the rights of taxpayers. "In a legal framework that espouses fundamental rights—such as the right to a fair trial, access to justice, right to dignity, and due process," he noted. He posed a critical question: whether there is any justifiable reason to uphold a culture of authoritative dominance in tax collection? "This inquiry challenges existing norms that often prioritise tax recovery above the rights and protections guaranteed to taxpayers, potentially undermining the very essence of justice. It also invites a thorough examination of the delicate balance that must be upheld between the efficient recovery of tax debts, as mandated by law, and the imperative to protect the rights of those being taxed." Justice Waheed further reflected on the spirit of Sections 137, 138 and 140, likening the ideal recovery process to that of a honeybee: "When delving into the provisions of Sections 137, 138, and 140, it becomes evident that the law prescribes a recovery process that, much like a honey bee gathering nectar from flowers without causing pain to the plant, mandates that taxation officers conduct tax collection and recovery in a manner that ensures: (a) the treatment of taxpayer with dignity and respect, (b) strict adherence to established legal protocols and procedures, and (c) the provision of transparent guidance and explanations to taxpayers." Outlining the procedural journey, he noted: "How is it so? This becomes clearer when we break down the stages involved in the imposition of tax, which consist of three phases. The first phase involves the declaration of tax liability, stating the taxpayer's financial obligations.' Subsequently, the second phase encompasses the assessment process, detailing the exact sum that the taxpayer is legally obligated to pay. 'Finally, if the taxpayer fails to fulfil this obligation voluntarily, the third phase introduces the recovery methods to be employed.' Underscoring the primacy of dignity, he stressed: "The right to dignity is the most central of all fundamental rights, as it is the source from which all other rights are derived. The Ordinance aims to strike a balance between ensuring tax recovery and upholding taxpayer dignity. The recovery process executed in these cases disregarded this balance." Justice Waheed further observed: "The failure to verify whether the 'amount payable' had been classified as 'tax due' before declaring the taxpayer (respondent) as a defaulter – and subsequently issuing a direct payment notice to the person holding money on behalf of the taxpayer (respondent) – amounted to discrediting the taxpayer (respondent) within its community and negatively affecting its business reputation." He cautioned against oppressive collection practices. "No legal standards can justify culture of authoritative dominance in tax recovery, as it fundamentally undermines the core principles of justice. This creates an imbalance between the need for efficient tax recovery and the protection of taxpayer's rights."
