FBR extends tax returns filing deadline to Aug 4
In this regard, the FBR has issued instructions to Chief Commissioners Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Offices (LTOs), Medium Taxpayers Offices (MTOs), Corporate Tax Offices (CTOs) and Regional Tax Offices (RTOs) on Thursday.
KTBA requests FBR to extend e-filing deadline
In exercise of the powers conferred under section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and section 43 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, the FBR has directed that the date of submission of Sales Tax and Federal Excise Return for the tax period of June, 2025 which was due on July 18, 2025 and extended to August 4, 2025 subject to the condition that due sales tax liability has been deposited within due date, FBR added.
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
30 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
SC rejects Commissioner IR's plea against LHC order
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition of Commissioner Inland Revenue against the Lahore High Court (LHC) order, saying the findings on facts does not suffer from any illegality or error. The petitioner department had assailed the LHC, Rawalpindi bench's order dated 26.03.2025, whereby, reference application filed under Section 47 of the Sales Tax 1990 by the petitioner against the order dated 4.01.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR), Islamabad, was dismissed. A two-judge bench of Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi heard Commissioner Inland Revenue's appeal. The court noted that the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue in the instant case, against the respondents (M/s Mustafa Enterprises) are based on vague and frivolous allegations and certain conclusions have been made on mere presumptions only, whereas, no material or evidence has been produced to substantiate the same. The court further noted that while passing the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue exceeded his jurisdiction while travelling beyond the very premises and the allegations made in the show cause notice, whereas, the respondents were never confronted with any such allegations or entries as reflected in the bank statement which were subsequently furnished by the respondents, showing the details of the total amount and the particulars of suppliers from whom purchases were made. It observed that while initiating the proceedings against the respondents, there was no material or evidence available on record to make out a case against the respondents of illegal or inadmissible claim of input tax adjustment, whereas, the entire proceedings and the Order-in-Original passed in the instant case was based on presumptions, whereas, no inquiry or verification was made by the department in respect of alleged fake/flying invoices. The SC judgment said that the ATIR and the Division Bench of LHC were justified to set aside both the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, while recording concurrent findings on facts which does not suffer from any illegality or error. The proceedings in the instant matter were initiated by Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue Unit-IV Cantt Zone RTO, Rawalpindi vide show cause notice dated 10.08.2021, whereby, the respondents were required to submit the record to prove as to whether the purchases made for the (Tax Period July 2019 to June 2020) amounting to Rs323,722,601 against which an amount of Rs55,032,846 was claimed as input tax, were actually made by them. It was further alleged in the show-cause notice that the record submitted by the respondents does not prove as to whether such purchases were actually made by the respondents during subject period, therefore, they have also failed to comply with the requirements of Section 73 of the Act. It was concluded that respondents did not purchase any coal from the local suppliers and unlawfully claimed input tax on the basis of fake/ flying invoices issued by the dubious suppliers, therefore, caused loss to the national exchequer to the tune of Rs55,032,846 by violating the provisions 6,7,8,22,23,26 and 73 read with Section 2(37) of the Act. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
30 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
SRO 706 (I)/2010 tractor tax refund: FBR to seek Law Division's opinion
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) will legally file reference with the Law and Justice Division seeking clarification whether SRO 706 (I)/2010 was legally issued under which input tax on agricultural tractors was exempted to the tractor manufacturers through refund. Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) Member Inland Revenue (Operations) Dr Hamid Ateeq Sarwar, Friday, informed the Public Accounts Committee that the FBR has accurately issued SRO706 (I)/2010 to ensure that the prices of tractors should not increase at that time. To clear ambiguity, the Auditor General of Pakistan (AGP) and the FBR can seek clarification from Law and Justice Division about the legality of this SRO. Tractor-manufacturing company: FBR raises Rs18bn sales tax demand During the PAC meeting, officials of the AGP directed the FBR to submit the update on the demand of Rs18 billion raised against a tractor company during an internal audit conducted on the directions of the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO). The officials of the AGP further pointed out whether the farmers were able to get the benefit of SRO706 (I)/2010. As the matter involves interpretation of law, the same should be referred to the Law and Justice Division, FBR Member Inland Revenue operations added. According to the audit brief submitted by the AGP before the PAC on Friday, as provided in Section 13(1) read with Sixth Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the supply of tractors has been exempted from the chargeability of sales tax. Conflicting with the above provision of the law, FBR issued SRO706 (I)/2010 dated 2nd August 2010 by exercising its powers under Section 13(2) of the law, wherein, the input tax on agricultural tractors was exempted to the tractor manufacturers by way of refund subject to the condition that 'manufacturer shall sell exempt agricultural tractors against proper tax invoice with zero sales tax at the price agreed with federal government'. The condition 'at the price agreed with the Federal Government' was also deleted on 28.04.2007. Audit is of the view that through said SRO, supply of tractors has been turned zero rated whereas it was an exempt commodity as contained in the 6th Schedule to the Act. The refund of input tax against supply of tractors by treating them as zero rated through an SRO was in conflict with the basic provisions of the Act. Hence, refund sanctioned in this way was unlawful causing a loss of government revenue to the tune of Rs7,069.311 million during tax periods in case of one manufacturer only, as per information available to Audit. The LTU, Lahore informed that refund of sales tax was allowed as per existing law/rules/instructions of FBR. As per Sections 72 and 42 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Federal Excise Act, 2005, the field officers were bound by such law/rules/instructions of FBR. As such no loss occurred on the part of officers of LTU. Audit is of the view that administrative officers were bound to comply with the provisions of the Act of the parliament in public interest rather than to blindly follow the instructions of FBR while sanctioning such refunds. Hence, the reply given by the department is irrelevant and not tenable. The AGP objected that special excise duty was levied under Section 3A of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 on goods specified in SRO 655(1)/2007 dated 29-06-2007. Later on, special excise duty was exempted vide SRO 675 (1)/2011 dated 01.07.2011 issued under Section 16(2) of the Act, effective from 01.07.2007 by way of refund to the purchaser i.e. manufacturer of tractors. After issuance of SRO of 2007, vendors of agricultural tractors kept on charging this duty and the same was also being paid by the tractor manufacturers while making taxable supplies. Tax authorities of FBR allowed a refund of special excise duty (SED) to M/s Millat Tractors (Pvt) Ltd by giving the benefit of SRO dated 01.07.2011 from back date i.e. July 1, 2011 to the taxpayer. Audit is of the view that Section 16(2) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 does not empower the federal government to exempt duty from retrospective effect as specifically allowed in case of sales tax under Section 13(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Hence, refund of SED of Rs242.826 million to Millat Tractors (Pvt) Ltd, allowed during July 2007 to May 2011, was unlawful. Moreover, the amount of special excise duty became part of the price of tractor and was passed on to consumers/farmers. In this way, tractor manufacturers enjoyed double benefit i.e. higher prices of product and refund. The officers of LTU allowed refund of special excise duty as per Sections 72 and 42 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Federal Excise Act. The reply was irrelevant and did not address the issue. The lapse was pointed out to the department during June to October 2013. In this regard, it is stated that recovery notice dated 03.07.2025 has been issued to M/s Millat Tractors Limited for payment of sales tax amounting to Rs1,847,840 by 15.07.2025. Further, DGAIR (North)'s letter dated 03.01.2017 has been forwarded to the board for necessary guidance and its reply is awaited. The DAC directed the LTO, Lahore to get its stance verified from audit in the light of board's clarification issued on 07.04.2017 and submit progress to audit and FBR by 30.07.2025. The PAC may like to direct the department to: i)expedite recovery of government dues; ii) justify issuance of SROs conflicting with Acts of the Parliament and fix responsibility on person(s) at fault; iii) submit SROs pertaining to exemptions, concessions and zero rating of supplies, issued during a financial year, for Parliamentary approval; and iv) conduct a fact finding enquiry on the issue as FBR has already conducted internal audit of a tractor company for the subsequent period(s) on the directions of honourable FTO and raised demand of Rs.18.7 billion on the same issue, the AGP report added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
31 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
FBR's lapses cost govt Rs397b, PAC panel told
Policymakers are expected to continue improvements on tax collection side to widen the tax net by signalling reduction in corporate and salary tax by 1% per year for the next 10 years and by reducing industrial energy tariffs. photo: file A subcommittee of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was left stunned on Friday after uncovering gross mismanagement within the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), which resulted in a staggering Rs397 billion loss to the national exchequer. The meeting of the subcommittee, chaired by its convener Shahida Akhtar Ali, was informed that the losses stemmed from the non-recovery of direct and indirect taxes as well as customs duties, due to negligence and inefficiency within the FBR. The subcommittee reviewed audit reports of the FBR for fiscal years 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014. Audit officials disclosed alarming lapses, pointing out that Rs6.5 billion worth of sales tax and Federal Excise Duty (FED) had remained uncollected. They revealed that 633 individuals had either underpaid or evaded taxes, yet officials at 10 FBR offices failed to take action against them. Moreover, despite the presence of legal provisions allowing for forced recovery without show-cause notices, these measures were not implemented. It was further disclosed that the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) had collected FED on tickets but failed to transfer Rs2.5 billion to the FBR. Officials added that, since PIA's privatisation remains incomplete, the government would now bear this liability. The committee directed authorities to verify the recoverable amount. The meeting was informed that 514 FBR agents did not deduct withholding tax during 2013-14, resulting in a shortfall of Rs24.15 billion. Additionally, the subcommittee was apprised that Rs71 million was assessed but never recovered. An FBR member informed the subcommittee that Rs16 billion had been retrieved and verified, while Rs452 million remained under audit scrutiny.
