Summary: Federal Board of Revenue which is established under section 3 of the federal Board of Revenue Act, 2007 being a state instrumentality is responsible for enforcing fiscal laws and collecting revenue for the Federation. Under section 4 subsection (ii) of the Act 2007 it has the authority to issue statutory rules and orders (SROs), orders, circulars and instructions for the enforcement of any of the provision of the fiscal law. Thus the Customs General Order No. 01 of 2021 ensuring the transportation of goods from Karachi till its safe transit to the Dry Port at Peshawar or the industrial unit of the consumer/importer is within the competence of FBR and being a policy matter the constitutional court shall not ordinarily interfere in the same.

Summary: The petitioners, taxpayers with the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), sought judicial review of administrative action through Notification No.F.No.1 (48)Jurisdiction/2014-177049-R dated 12.10.2020 ("Impugned Notification"), which changed their taxing jurisdiction from the Regional Tax Office (RTO) Bahawalpur to the Large Taxpayer Office (LTO), Multan. They argued that this change conflicted with Article 37(i) of the Constitution, mandating decentralization.Their legal counsel contended that the Impugned Notification, issued under Section 209 of the Ordinance, exceeded its scope, citing legal precedents such as "CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAWALPINDI Versus PAKISTAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAWALPINDI," (PLD 1991 SC 14)"GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Director-General, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others Versus FARHEEN RASHID," "Qazi ABDUL JALIL Versus N.W.F.P. FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (2010 SCMR 1933)through Chairman and others," and "Messrs HAQ BAHU SUGAR MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others."Ms. Attiya Rehman(2016 PTD 955), representing the respondent, highlighted the purpose of LTOs, emphasizing their role in providing high-quality services to large taxpayers and facilitating ease of doing business. She explained that LTOs were established to cater to growing industries, particularly in South Punjab.The court considered legal arguments, including the interpretation of Section 209 of the Ordinance and the scope of the Impugned Notification. It ruled that the notification was competently issued under the law. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that LTOs aimed to improve the tax governing mechanism and did not infringe upon petitioners' rights.

Summary: The case revolved around a show cause notice issued by the Federal Board of Revenue in Pakistan to Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors B.V., a company based in the Netherlands, regarding its tax exemption claim under the Double Taxation Treaty between Pakistan and the Netherlands. The notice was issued based on the results of audit proceedings.The petitioner challenged the notice, claiming that it should not be considered a permanent establishment in Pakistan under the treaty, and that the revenue authority did not properly understand the facts of its presence in Pakistan.The respondents argued that the audit proceedings had revealed information that justified the issuance of the notice, and they did not dispute the applicability of the treaty. They also cited legal precedent stating that show cause notices are not typically justiciable in writ jurisdiction.The court considered the arguments and legal precedents and emphasized that a show cause notice is a preliminary step in a legal process meant to provide an alleged defaulter with a chance to respond before any adverse action is taken. It stated that a show cause notice could only be challenged in exceptional circumstances such as lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, or coram non judice (lack of authority to try a case). The court also stressed that the right to a fair trial is a fundamental constitutional right.In this case, the court found that there was no evident lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, or mala fide intent in the issuance of the notice. It noted that the determination of factual controversies is generally not suitable for resolution in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the court concluded that the show cause notice should proceed through the designated forum as per the notice's provisions. The petitioner was directed to present its case there, and the respondents were instructed to conduct the proceedings and issue a reasoned decision. If the petitioner remained dissatisfied, they could challenge the findings in the appropriate jurisdiction as per the Income Tax Ordinance 2001.In summary, the High Court ruled that the show cause notice in question should not be interfered with in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, and the petitioner should pursue its case through the designated forum provided by the notice.

Summary: Background:The respondent, Muhammad Aslam Khan, was employed as a Sepoy in the office of Director General, Intelligence and Investigation, Federal Board of Revenue (F.B.R.), on 09.09.1985.He was promoted as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on an acting charge basis following the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and with the approval of the Director General.Despite serving on the post of LDC for almost 10 years, his request for confirmation in the position was denied.The respondent filed a writ petition, which was decided by the Peshawar High Court, directing that the respondent be deemed confirmed as an LDC with all service benefits.---Issues:Whether the respondent had a right to be confirmed as an LDC.Whether the appellants' promotion of the respondent to the LDC position on an acting charge basis was lawful.Whether the appellants' conduct constituted maladministration.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court held that the appellants' promotion of the respondent to the LDC position, despite vacancies meant for direct recruitment, was arbitrary and violative of Article 27 of the Constitution.It was noted that the appellants' reliance on Rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, was misplaced as it did not apply to the present case.The Court criticized the appellants for their failure to fill vacancies through direct recruitment since 2007, which was indicative of maladministration.The appeal was dismissed, and the Chairman of the F.B.R. was directed to take appropriate action against the delinquent officials.---Precedents:Government of Pakistan, Revenue Division, etc. Vs. Shafqat Ali Awan and others - Civil Appeals No.164 to 168 of 2012 (Dismissed on 13.02.2020)

Summary: Misc Matter: Challenges increase in petroleum prices seeks the direction for reduction in prices.

Summary: Appeal against acquittal in Case FIR No. 69/19 dated 27.02.2019 Offence U/s 13/20/65 AO, PS Khanna, Islamabad

Summary: This legal document pertains to a writ petition challenging the validity of two statutory regulatory orders (SROs) issued by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) in 2018 and 2019, along with the vires of a section in the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The petitioners, primarily retailers, contest the requirements imposed by the SROs for POS installation and object to specific sub-rules in Rule 150 ZEB of Chapter XIV-AA. Their arguments included challenges to the authority of the Board, allegations of conflict with the Act's provisions, and claims of unreasonableness and discrimination. The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge against the Board, emphasizing its authority to issue the SROs. It dismissed arguments related to the Act's sections, stating that the SROs are consistent with the legislative intent. The court addressed concerns about the definition of Tier-I retailers, pointing out that such classifications are justifiable. It also rejected claims of unreasonableness and discrimination, stating that the SROs meet the objectives of the Act. Ultimately, the court declared the challenged provisions in the Sales Tax Rules as intra vires the Sales Tax Act, 1990, dismissing the writ petition and affirming the validity of the SROs.

Summary: Background:The case involved a challenge to the Circular issued by FBR regarding the computation of surcharge under Section 4A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The respondent firm, engaged in importing goods, contended that the surcharge should be computed only on the income derived during a specific 3? month period rather than for the entire tax year 2011.---Issues:Whether the Circular issued by FBR regarding the computation of surcharge under Section 4A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was lawful.Interpretation of Section 4A regarding the computation of surcharge for the tax year 2011.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the Circular issued by FBR was lawful and in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.The Court interpreted Section 4A to mean that surcharge is to be computed on the income tax liability for the entire tax year 2011, proportionately allocated to the 3? month period. The Court rejected the respondent's contention that surcharge should only be computed on income derived during the specific 3? month period.The Court emphasized that splitting the tax year for the purpose of determining separate taxable incomes would be contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.The Court highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and the principle that taxation laws should be interpreted in a manner that promotes consistency and uniformity.---Citations/Precedents:Mehreen Zaibun Nisa v. Land Commissioner, Multan (PLD 1975 SC 397)Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Tayyab (1989 SCMR 1621)Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Summary: CR: Against the order dated 14-12-2019 passed by Learned Civil Judge Islamabad, whereas the application regarding change of guarantor / surety has been dismissed.

Summary: Background:The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, which annulled the table of tax rates introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, under the Income Tax Ordinance. The High Court's decision was based on the grounds that the tax rates lacked certainty, were based on incorrect arithmetic calculations, and lacked a rational basis and reasonableness.---Issues:Whether the grounds cited by the High Court justify annulling a statute promulgated by Parliament.Whether the tax rates introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, constituted confiscatory taxation.Order:The Supreme Court held that the grounds cited by the High Court were insufficient to declare the statute void. Such grounds are more appropriate for testing the validity of executive actions, not legislative measures. Additionally, the court noted that the effective tax rates under the Finance Act, 2012, were not confiscatory. The appellant informed the court that the tax rates had been revised in the tax year 2014, addressing the concerns raised by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned judgment was set aside.----Citations/Precedents:Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ashraf (PLD 1993 SC 176)---Quote:Declaring a statute promulgated by Parliament under the Constitution to be void is a very serious matter. Such declaration may be given on the ground of incompetence of Parliament to enact the law or for a violation of fundamental rights by the enacted law. A declaration given solely on the ground of incorrect arithmetical calculation, lack of rational basis or reasonableness of the statute is devoid of legal foundation. Such grounds, if at all, are criteria for testing the validity of executive action and not legislative measures.