LHC nullifies mining dues markup sub-rules
The court declared the sub rules ultra vires and illegal.
The petitioners had challenged notices for payment, including markup calculated under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 68 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002 as well as a markup on outstanding rental and renewal dues under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 73.
The judge observed that the determination of rates did not mean that the provincial government was also vested with the powers to impose markup if a person had failed in its opinion to pay the amount of royalty or rent as required by Rule 68 or 73.
"Certainly, the imposition of markup is strictly not covered by the power to determine rates by the provincial government and is in excess of that power," Justice Karim observed.
The petitioners had challenged orders of the Punjab secretary for mines and minerals upholding orders issued by the director general on various dates.
The legality of the rules was challenged before the lower forums but the secretary was of the opinion that they did not offend the primary enactment, the Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Minerals Development (Government Control) Act, 1948.
The petitioners' viewpoint was that the act did not confer the power on the rule-making authority to impose markup in terms of rules 63(2) and 73(3).
The dispute revolved around the payment of markup.
The petitioners' counsel argued that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 68 and Sub-Rule (3) of rule 73 were similarly worded and imposed a markup of one per cent per day on the amount or part thereof remaining unpaid from the due date until all outstanding amount was paid. The rules also compounded the payment of markup until all outstanding amount was paid.
The essence of challenge of the petitioners related to the power to levy markup on any amount of royalty or rent unpaid by them.
The respondents argued that the payment of markup would be covered by any matter ancillary or incidental to the matters set out in the other clauses of Section 2.
Justice Karim observed that the phrase any matter ancillary or incidental to the matters set out in the clauses would not cover the imposition of markup in case of failure to pay the principal amount. These matters would perhaps have connection with the powers of the government to recover the amount of royalty or rent and for this purpose provisions have been made in rules 70 and 71, giving the power to the provincial government to recover the amount of royalty in case of failure by any person to make the payment.
Clause (8) of Section 2 cannot be extended or interpreted to mean that by rule-making power an additional levy of markup can be imposed on a person whereas the primary enactment does not authorise such a payment to be made, he observed.
Striking down Sub-rule (2) of Rule 68 and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 73 of The Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, the court declared unlawful the impugned order and demands issued under the rules.
The court also quashed the notices issued to the petitioners.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
TCP invites bids for import of 0.3m tons of sugar
KARACHI: In line with federal government directives, the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) has issued an international tender for the import of 300,000 metric tons of white refined sugar. In order to stabilise the rising prices of the commodity and avoid shortage on the domestic market, the federal government has decided to import 0.5 million metric tons of sugar. The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has already exempted customs duty on the import of 0.5 million tons sugar and also reduced sales tax rate from 18 percent to 0.25 percent and withholding tax up to 0.25 percent on the import of commodity by the TCP or private sector. Following the export of sugar during the last fiscal year, domestic sugar prices have been on the rise, reaching up to Rs 180 per kilogram compared to less than Rs 140 per kilogram at the time of export. In response to this sharp increase and to stabilize the local market, the government has decided to import sugar. Accordingly, on the directives of the government, state run grain trader has issued an international tender and invited sealed bids from the international white refined sugar suppliers/manufacturers, directly or through their local offices or representatives having capacity to supply 'White Refined Sugar' through worldwide sources, for supply of 300,000 metric tons (+/-5% More Or Less Seller's Option) of white refined sugar (bagged cargo) on CFR Karachi and/or Gwadar basis (in break bulk) including 50,000 metric tons of white refined sugar (bagged cargo) on delivered at place unloaded (TCP Pipri Godown) basis in containers only. The bids, prepared in accordance with the instructions in the tender documents, must be dropped on or before July 18, 2025, latest by 1130 hours. Bids will be opened on the same day at 1200 hours in the TCP's Board Room, in presence of the bidders or their authorized representatives who may wish to be present. As per tender, bids must be made for minimum 25,000 metric tons (+/- 5 percent MOLSO) on CFR Karachi and less than 25,000 metric tons for CFR (Break Bulk) and/or DPU (Containerized) will not be accepted. The validity of bids must for Eighty (80) hours from submission of bids and total quantity of white refined sugar must reach the designated ports/destination in Pakistan in accordance with the shipment schedule given in the Tender Document. However, TCP has made it clear that the interested parties who have previously not fulfilled their contractual obligations with TCP shall not be eligible to participate in the bids, unless they clear their dues along with penalties or fulfil their contractual obligations in services and commodities with TCP, as the case may be, before tender opening date. Furthermore, those firms against which blacklisting procedures have been initiated by TCP shall not be eligible to participate in the tender. The supply/import of white refined sugar will be governed by the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, provisions of the Trade Policy in force, PPRA Rules 2004 and the orders/notifications issued there under; and shall be in accordance with the requirements/specifications laid down by Pakistan Standards Quality Control Authority (PSQCA), for imported white refined sugar. Successful bidder shall be required to furnish a Performance Guarantee, for due and satisfactory performance of the contract, equal to five percent (5%) of the value of the contracted goods (including +5% of MOLSO) within five (05) working days from award of contract, in the form of a Bank Guarantee in US Dollars from a minimum 'A' rated (PACRA/VIS) Bank in Pakistan or in the form of a Banker's Cheque in PKR (Equivalent to US dollars at the exchange rate on or a day preceding the date of opening of the tender. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
LHC nullifies mining dues markup sub-rules
Lahore High Court (LHC) Justice Shahid Karim has struck down two sub-rules of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules related to imposition of markup on non-payment of royalty and annual rent. The court declared the sub rules ultra vires and illegal. The petitioners had challenged notices for payment, including markup calculated under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 68 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002 as well as a markup on outstanding rental and renewal dues under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 73. The judge observed that the determination of rates did not mean that the provincial government was also vested with the powers to impose markup if a person had failed in its opinion to pay the amount of royalty or rent as required by Rule 68 or 73. "Certainly, the imposition of markup is strictly not covered by the power to determine rates by the provincial government and is in excess of that power," Justice Karim observed. The petitioners had challenged orders of the Punjab secretary for mines and minerals upholding orders issued by the director general on various dates. The legality of the rules was challenged before the lower forums but the secretary was of the opinion that they did not offend the primary enactment, the Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Minerals Development (Government Control) Act, 1948. The petitioners' viewpoint was that the act did not confer the power on the rule-making authority to impose markup in terms of rules 63(2) and 73(3). The dispute revolved around the payment of markup. The petitioners' counsel argued that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 68 and Sub-Rule (3) of rule 73 were similarly worded and imposed a markup of one per cent per day on the amount or part thereof remaining unpaid from the due date until all outstanding amount was paid. The rules also compounded the payment of markup until all outstanding amount was paid. The essence of challenge of the petitioners related to the power to levy markup on any amount of royalty or rent unpaid by them. The respondents argued that the payment of markup would be covered by any matter ancillary or incidental to the matters set out in the other clauses of Section 2. Justice Karim observed that the phrase any matter ancillary or incidental to the matters set out in the clauses would not cover the imposition of markup in case of failure to pay the principal amount. These matters would perhaps have connection with the powers of the government to recover the amount of royalty or rent and for this purpose provisions have been made in rules 70 and 71, giving the power to the provincial government to recover the amount of royalty in case of failure by any person to make the payment. Clause (8) of Section 2 cannot be extended or interpreted to mean that by rule-making power an additional levy of markup can be imposed on a person whereas the primary enactment does not authorise such a payment to be made, he observed. Striking down Sub-rule (2) of Rule 68 and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 73 of The Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, the court declared unlawful the impugned order and demands issued under the rules. The court also quashed the notices issued to the petitioners.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Federalised tax reform strategy
The Constitution (Eighteenth Amend-ment) Act, 2010, [18th Amendment], became effective on April 19, 2010, brought a major shift in Pakistan's fiscal and administrative architecture. With principal objective of granting greater autonomy to provinces by devolving critical functions, the 18thAmendment transformed federal-provincial relationship, with re-sharing of taxation powers conforming to fiscal federalism and decentralized governance model. The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) retained power to collect major taxes, e.g., income tax, sales tax on goods, customs duty and federal excise duty. Provinces were empowered to collect capital gains tax, estate duty, capital value tax and wealth tax on immoveable property, as well as retaining income tax on agricultural income and self-collection of sales tax on services—an indirect tax that has since emerged as a vital source of provincial revenue. The devolution embedded in the 18th Amendment held immense potential to redefine the country's financial model envisioning a federation where provinces would act as self-sufficient units, driving competition, enabling business-friendly policies, and harmonizing fiscal discipline with regional development goals. If implemented with prudence and vision, the model could have stimulated inter-provincial competition in ease of doing business, infrastructure development, and investment attraction. Reality, however, has unfolded far differently. Having gained greater fiscal access through federal transfers under the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award, the provinces have largely failed to generate proportional revenues of their own—collectively itremains 0.7-0.8% of the GDP. The result is a pronounced fiscal disparity where spending powers have grown while revenue capacities have stagnated, increasing provinces' dependency on federal transfers. Lack of coordination between federal and provincial tax authorities has created a fragmented tax environment that burdens businesses and deters investment. Businesses operating across multiple provinces now encounter varying tax rates, legal definitions, compliance portals, audit procedures, and dispute mechanisms. The duplication and contradiction in tax regimes have raised the cost of doing business and spawned a growing number of tax disputes. In several instances, both federal and provincial authorities claim jurisdiction over the same transaction, leading to double taxation. The resulting uncertainty not only affects businesses' financial planning but also shakes investor confidence in Pakistan's regulatory environment. The most recent provincial budgets for Punjab, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for fiscal year 2025-26 [FY 2026] have further complicated the already convoluted tax framework. Introduction of a negative-list regime signifies a massive shift, wherein all services are considered taxable by default unless explicitly exempted or assigned a different rate. The Punjab Sales Tax Act, 2012is amended to tax commercial property rentals at 16%, exempting only residential rentals, under Entry 19 of the First Schedule. Similarly, the Sindh Finance Act 2025 adopted a comparable structure under which commercial property rentals are taxed at 3% pursuant to Entry 17 of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011. The new legislation in Sindh marks a key moment in the province's efforts to expand its tax base, though it also raises critical constitutional and legal questions. The previous legal position, enunciated by the Sindh High Court in Constitutional Petition No. D-2421 of 2016 (Young's Private Limited v. Province of Sindh), explicitly ruled that renting of immoveable property does not constitute service. The Court clarified that leasing property does not involve active provision or rendering of a service by the landlord and is merely the transfer of a right to use premises. Therefore, rental income, which lacks the characteristics of economic activity or facilitation by the owner, cannot be brought within the purview of sales tax on services. The Sindh Finance Act 2025 attempts to circumvent this legal clarity by amending the definition of 'service' in the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act to include 'the granting, assignment, cession or surrender of any right,' thereby legally justifying taxation of property rentals. The law has further codified this change through amended Section 2(79) and provided statutory backing to tax transactions, notwithstanding past judicial interpretations. Punjab has mirrored this approach with its new legal provision taxing commercial rentals, effectively creating a multi-jurisdictional expansion of sales tax regimes into domains previously exempt or deemed untaxable. Imposition of sales tax on property rentals, which are already subject to income tax under the federal Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, represents a severe escalation in the cost of doing business. Rental income is taxed federally at rates reaching up to 25% for individuals and associations of persons and as high as 39% for corporate entities. The additional layer of provincial sales tax now results in tax stacking, further eroding business margins. The move reflects growing financial appetite of both federal and provincial governments, which have resorted to aggressive revenue extraction from compliant sectors instead of undertaking the difficult but necessary task of broadening the tax base. The resulting tax framework is not only complex and burdensome but also fundamentally regressive. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that constitute the backbone of Pakistan's economy are most vulnerable to these cumulative tax measures. Fragmentation and overlapping of federal and provincial tax domains create an environment where formal businesses face constant regulatory uncertainty, financial unpredictability, and operational challenges. Instead of encouraging entrepreneurship and investment, the system punishes compliance and disincentivizes growth. Taxation of rental income under both income tax and sales tax frameworks violates the principles of tax neutrality and legal certainty. The notion that mere possession of a commercial property constitutes a taxable (sic) service under provincial sales tax laws defies traditional legal definitions of the term 'service'. This overreach raises constitutional issues and is likely to be challenged again in courts. The issue becomes even more concerning when considered in the light of prior judicial pronouncements that protected rental transactions from such encroachments. The fundamental role of taxation is to facilitate development, incentivize formalization, and ensure equity. However, Pakistan's tax system increasingly appears to be functioning in reverse, penalizing documented sectors whereas leaving the vast informal economy untouched. Absence of coordination between FBR and provincial revenue authorities further exacerbates the problem. Duplication of audit notices, contradictory assessments, and arbitrary application of tax laws are all symptoms of a governance system that is out of sync with the needs of a modern economy. Focus on squeezing existing taxpayers, rather than creating an enabling environment for expanding the tax net, reflects a short-term, reactive approach to revenue generation. This mindset overlooks the larger structural issues, such as outdated tax administration systems, lack of data integration between authorities, and the political reluctance to bring influential untaxed segments into the tax fold. Consequently, the formal sector continues to shrink under the weight of growing tax demands, however, informal operators flourish without oversight. Time has come to adopt a holistic and forward-looking tax reform strategy. The federal and provincial governments must first recognize the 18th Amendment's constitutional spirit, not just as a political realignment, but as a responsibility to harmonize policies for national progress. The need for an integrated tax policy framework, jointly developed by federal and provincial governments, is more pressing than ever. The policy must provide clarity on jurisdictional boundaries, eliminate overlapping taxes, and ensure that the same transaction is not subjected to dual taxation under different laws. Harmonization of definitions, rates, procedures, and audit mechanisms across federal and provincial jurisdictions would significantly reduce the cost of doing business and enhance voluntary compliance. The creation of a unified tax portal, shared audit protocols, and coordinated taxpayer databases would go a long way in restoring confidence in the tax system. The provinces must be encouraged and supported to generate their own revenues, but not through regressive and legally questionable means. Instead, focus should be on widening the tax base by formalizing real estate, retail, agriculture, and service sectors that currently escape the tax radar. The rental taxation issue should be revisited through a constitutional and economic lens. If commercial rentals are to be taxed, then the mechanism must be clear, justified, and proportionate. The burden on taxpayers must be fair and rational, and any dual taxation must be eliminated through amendments or harmonization agreements between federal and provincial entities. Moreover, existing judgments of superior courts must be respected in both letter and spirit to maintain the sanctity of judicial oversight in fiscal policy. The future of Pakistan's economy depends on its ability to move from fiscal coercion to fiscal cooperation. Governments at all levels must treat taxpayers as partners in national development rather than as easy targets for revenue collection. A simplified, harmonized, and fair tax system is not only a constitutional imperative under the 18th Amendment but a foundational requirement for economic stability, investment promotion, and social trust. Only through serious institutional reform, coordination, and legal clarity can Pakistan transform its tax regime from a deterrent into a driver of prosperity. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
