Sales Tax Act for ex-FATA, PATA restored
Income tax collection was about Rs335 billion more than the target, offsetting the impact of missed sales tax and customs duty targets. photo: file
The Constitutional Bench has reinstated the Sales Tax Amendment Act for the formerly FATA and PATA, suspending the Peshawar High Court's earlier verdict that had nullified the act.
The case concerning the exemption granted under the Sixth Schedule of the Sales Tax Act for residents of FATA and PATA was heard on Wednesday by the five-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. Other members of the bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Court bans Thandiani, Taxila crushers
The Abbottabad Bench of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) has issued a landmark 31-page judgment, declaring the stone crushing plants on Thandiani Road and Taxila illegal and ordering their permanent closure. In its detailed verdict, PHC noted that the NOCs (No Objection Certificates) obtained by the stone crushing plant operators from various government officials held no legal validity. Previously, the Environmental Protection Tribunal, which holds monthly sessions at the Sessions Court Building in Abbottabad, had also ordered the closure of these stone crushing plants for damaging the environment and air quality. However, the plant owners managed to continue their operations by appeasing the police and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Challenging the Environmental Tribunal's decision, the stone crushing plant owners filed writ petitions at the Abbottabad Bench of PHC through their lawyers, including Nasir Aslam and Zafar Iqbal. PHC rejected these petitions and ordered the permanent closure of all stone crushing plants causing environmental harm near residential areas. This public-interest historic ruling was achieved largely through the efforts of young lawyer Hashim Iqbal Khan Jadoon, who was educated and trained in Canada.
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Unregistered taxpayers: 4pc ‘further sales tax' to be abolished
ISLAMABAD: The government is all set to take a bold documentation measure to abolish four percent 'further sales tax' on un-registered sales taxpayers and sustain huge revenue loss by registering the entire supply chain of businesses in budget (2025-26). Sources told Business Recorder here on Tuesday that the abolition of the four percent 'further sales tax' will result in revenue loss to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), but it will be instrumental in registration of the entire supply chain covering dealers, wholesalers and retailers. From manufacturing stage till retail outlets, the entire supply chain would come under the documented regime. The same is the situation with the importers where subsequent supply chain of imported goods are not registered with the sales tax department. Budget 2025-26: KCCI urges govt to expand tax net, targets 4.6mn unregistered entities The un-registered sales tax persons are enjoying the same status of 'non-filers of income tax returns' and carrying out all business transactions by paying higher rates of withholding taxes or further tax on sales tax side. The revenue loss after abolition of the 'further sales tax' would be temporary and revenue gains are much higher in long term period. Through Finance Bill (2025-26), the FBR has proposed amendments in the Sales Tax Act for the documentation of the entire supply chain with the sales tax department. In 2023, the FBR had increased the rate of 'further sales tax' from three to four percent in the amended Finance Bill 2023. Presently, the rate of further tax is four percent on the supplies made to the un-registered persons. The rate of 'further sales tax' was increased by one percent to discourage supplies made to the unregistered persons. If a person intended to remain out of the sales tax net, he is required to pay higher rate of further tax at the rate of four percent. Under the law, the 'further tax' is charged on supplies of taxable goods made by a registered person to a person who has not obtained a sales tax registration number or has obtained a registration number but is not an active taxpayer. The said rate of sales tax under sub-section (1A) of Section 3 of the Sales Tax Act was enhanced to four percent through the Finance Act, 2023. Officials added that the sales tax base totalled between 40,000 to 60,000 who are paying sales tax including those depositing very low amount of sales tax. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Sec 179(4) Customs Act: Power of FBR to grant extension ‘narrower': SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court noted that the power of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) under Section 179(4) of the Customs Act, 1969 to grant extension of time is much narrower and circumscribed. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Munib Akhtar, ruled that while hearing an appeal of Director, Directorate General, Intelligence and Investigation (Customs) against the decision of the Sindh High Court (SHC), and dismissed it. Dr Farhat Zafar, representing the petitioner (DG Intelligence and Investigation (Customs) submitted that in this case an extension of time was granted by the FBR and therefore, the impugned decision of the SHC is not sustainable. She relied on paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment of larger bench of the Supreme Court, which upheld the principles laid down in the case of Collector of Sales Tax, Gujranwala and others v Messrs Super Asia Mohammad Din and Sons and others 2017 SCMR 1427 (Super Asia). SHC judgment: SC reserves verdict on DG Customs Valuation's pleas The court noted that these paras dealt with Section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and considered the possibility of the grant of an extension of time in terms thereof. Section 74 was held to apply in terms as stated in para 12 of the judgment in Super Asia. The judgment said this matter (extension of time) has arisen under the Customs Act, 1969, which Section 179 (4) says; 'The Board shall have the powers to regulate the system of adjudication including transfer of cases and extension of time-limit in exceptional circumstances.' The court noted that the power to grant an extension by the Board under Section 179(4) of the Customs Act, 1969, is circumscribed, and is to be exercised only in 'exceptional circumstances'. On the other hand, Section 74 of the 1990 Act provides that the Board is empowered to grant an extension to the extent found 'appropriate'. The court said that there is an obvious and clear difference between the two provisions; the power under Section 179(4) is much narrower and circumscribed. Therefore, the paragraphs of Super Asia sought to be relied upon by counsel for the petitioner have no relevance. It stated that the Larger Bench has also made some observations with regard to Section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The judgment also said that, on a query from the Court, the counsel for the petitioner has candidly stated that the permission/ letter of extension that was granted by the Board was not placed on the record before the Appellate Tribunal. The judgment said that indeed, this was specifically noted by the Tribunal in its order; i.e., 'However, the plea taken by the respondents is that they have taken approval from FBR as mentioned in Section 179(4) but no such approval was placed before the Tribunal'. The court noted that the matter came before it from a tax reference and it is well established that beyond the stage of the Appellate Tribunal, it is only questions of law that can be taken to the High Court. It is also well settled that the record on the basis of which the questions of law can be decided is in terms of the record as it stood before the Appellate Tribunal. The judgment said that record cannot be added to and certainly not on a point that requires factual determination. Since the position is that the FBR letter by which it is claimed extension of time was granted by the Board was never placed on the record before the Appellate Tribunal, it is impermissible for any reliance to be placed on the same in this Court. The Court; therefore, declined to entertain this point, saying; 'Any departure from the well settled position would allow a party to a tax reference to alter the record either before the High Court or this Court which is not permissible.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
