Sharif Family Businesses use Judiciary to avoid paying taxes! Bravo

Tax bachaliya 🙂

While the PML-N Chief is right now speaking about corruption in Pakistan after his condolence meeting with President Asif Zardari, we are pleased to highlight one news item that has caught our attention. According to The News, the allies of PML-N in the media, Federal Board of Revenue has been barred by a two member bench from recovering Special Excise Duty from the three sugar mills thaat belong to Mian Nawaz Sharif and his family. The names of these sugar mills are:

  • Ittefaq Sugar Mills – Sahiwal
  • Brothers Sugar Mills – Lahore
  • Ramzan Sugar Mills – Jhang

However right the pleading of the Sharif Family against the claims of FBR, they had a bigger platform available to tell the people of Pakistan the impact of SED on inflation and what not, but then they choose to take the easy route. Go to Lahore High Court and seek a stay order. Let the status quo remain there and take advantage. On top of that, lambast the government for not raising taxes from those who are due to pay taxes. Kya yeh khula tazad nahee??

Another point to note the commonality between Sharif Family and Geo/Jang group? They talk about increasing tax net and reducing expenditure but then go to high courts to get stay orders on recovery of tax from them! Shameful isn’t it?

FBR barred from recovering duty from Sharif family mills

LAHORE: A division bench of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday barred the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) from recovering “Special Excise Duty” from three sugar mills of the Sharif family and directed it to file a reply till June 14.
The bench comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Asad Munir, issued the order on an intra court appeal filed by Ittefaq, Brothers and Ramzan sugar mills challenging an order of a single bench wherein their writ petition challenging the special excise duty was dismissed. All the three sugar mills belong to Sharif family.
Representing the sugar mills, Advocate Ijaz Awan pleaded that, on June 29, 2007, the Ministry of Finance had issued a notification relating to federal excise S.R.O. 655(I)/2007 whereby Special Excise Duty (one per cent of the value) was levied without having lawful jurisdiction. He said the government had wrongly exercised the powers conferred by section 3-A of the Federal Excise Act, 2005. He argued that section 3-A was not a part of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 at the time and the date when the impugned SRO (notification) was issued as it was inserted subsequently vide Act of parliament.
Awan argued that the rate of the special excise duty had recently been enhanced from one to 2.5 percent through an amending SRO on March 19 in pursuant to federal excise (amendment) ordinance, 2011. He said the government (FBR) had enhanced the rate of the duty, ignoring the fact that basic notification of levying the excise duty was issued without lawful authority.
The counsel said the appellant (mills) was earlier also forced by the respondent Collectorate and its officials with respect to the payment of allegedly due special excise duty on goods produced, manufactured, imported — obtained — fabricated by/prior to the cutoff date of July 1, 2007 regardless of the fact that the special excise duty was not liable to be paid with retrospective effect.
But, subsequently, after filing of the writ petition, the respondent authorities realized the fact and accepted the plea of the appellants, issuing a conceding clarification, he said and added that a single bench of the LHC, however, had on May 13 dismissed the writ petition.
The counsel prayed that the May 13 order of the single bench be set aside and appeal be accepted in the interest of equity and justice. He further prayed that the impugned notification with regard to levy of special excise duty be declared illegal. The court was also requested to declare as illegal that section 3-A of Federal Excise Act, 2005 amounted doubling taxation.
The bench, after hearing the arguments, stayed the recovery of the special excise duty to the effect of the appellant sugar mills and sought replies from the FBR and other respondent authorities.



Latest Comments
  1. mohammad zafar khan
  2. Ahmed Iqbalabadi