Posted by: Nasir Ansari
03-09-2025, 12:05 PM
Forum: Non-Taxation discussions ٹیکسز کے علاؤہ
- No Replies
03-09-2025, 12:05 PM
Forum: Non-Taxation discussions ٹیکسز کے علاؤہ
- No Replies
Updated: August 26, 2025
Posted by: Ather Saleem
02-09-2025, 09:42 PM
Forum: Updates on Pak Tax Forums فورم کے متعلق
- No Replies
02-09-2025, 09:42 PM
Forum: Updates on Pak Tax Forums فورم کے متعلق
- No Replies
Pakistan Taxation Forums (Website)'s Android App is Live now:
In addition to normal web access, you can access taxation forums through android app.
The app provides, RSS updates on latest posts at top of screen in addition to Notification alerts. You can choose sub-forums for which you need notification of new post.
Thank you & Looking forward to your thoughts, suggestions, and reviews to make the forums even better.
Posted by: Nasir Ansari
01-09-2025, 07:22 PM
Forum: Corporate & SECP Matters کمپنیوں کے متعلق
- No Replies
01-09-2025, 07:22 PM
Forum: Corporate & SECP Matters کمپنیوں کے متعلق
- No Replies
Last Update: September 1, 2025
Contents:
1. Questionable Legal Authority and Ultra Vires Actions:
2. The "Investors and Analysts" Are an Undefined and Unaccountable Class:
3. Creates Unnecessary Risk of Liability and Market Abuse:
4. Onerous, Costly, and Operationally Burdensome:
5. The Proposed Amendments Exacerbate Existing Flaws:
6. Conclusion and Opposition:
7. Recommendations:
Posted by: HA_Law_Graduate
27-08-2025, 11:11 PM
Forum: Constitution and Other Non-Tax Laws نان ٹیکس اور آئین
- No Replies
27-08-2025, 11:11 PM
Forum: Constitution and Other Non-Tax Laws نان ٹیکس اور آئین
- No Replies
What is Article 10-A?
Article 10-A was added to the Constitution of Pakistan through the 18th Amendment in 2010. It says: “For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him, a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.” Simply, it guarantees that whenever someone’s rights or liabilities are being decided, or when someone is accused of a crime, the process must be fair, transparent, and according to law.
What was the position before Article 10-A?
Before Article 10-A, the idea of fair trial and due process existed in Pakistan’s legal system, but it was not expressly present in the Constitution. Courts relied on general principles of natural justice, such as giving a person the right to be heard ‘audi alteram partem’ and ensuring impartiality. These principles were applied by judges through interpretation, but they were not recognized as a separate, explicit constitutional right. By adding Article 10-A, Pakistan made the right to a fair trial a fundamental right.
Principles Flowing from Article 10-A
1) Fair Trial
After its introduction in the 18th Amendment, Pakistani courts started interpreting Article 10-A to clarify what fair trial and due process means. In 2020 PLD 334 SC, the court outlined fair trial to include:
1. Right to know the charges against you.
2. Right to have a lawyer.
3. Right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
4. Right to be heard before any decision affecting your rights is made.
5. Right to have an impartial and competent tribunal.
2) Due Process
In the case reported as 2011 SCMR 408, the Supreme Court of Pakistan explained due process it in a way that it includes but is not limited to:
1. Due notice of proceedings.
2. Reasonable opportunity to defend oneself.
3. A tribunal or court that is impartial and honest.
4. The tribunal must have proper jurisdiction (legal authority).
How due process affects the rights of a person
Due process protects individuals from arbitrary decisions of the government, courts, or institutions. It ensures no one can be punished, deprived of liberty, or denied their rights without a fair chance to defend themselves. For example, a person cannot be convicted in a criminal case without being given notice of the charges, a chance to hire a lawyer, and the right to present their side. Similarly, in civil or administrative matters, a person cannot be dismissed from service or deprived of property without being heard.
To summarize, due process balances the power of the State with the rights of the individual. It acts as a shield again
st unfair treatment and guarantees justice not just in outcomes, but also in the procedures leading to those outcomes.
Posted by: HA_Law_Graduate
26-08-2025, 06:28 PM
Forum: Constitution and Other Non-Tax Laws نان ٹیکس اور آئین
- No Replies
26-08-2025, 06:28 PM
Forum: Constitution and Other Non-Tax Laws نان ٹیکس اور آئین
- No Replies
The Constitution of Pakistan secures a wide range of fundamental rights for its citizens in Articles 8 to 28. Article 18 protects the right of individuals to enter upon any lawful profession, trade, or business, while at the same time allowing the state to impose reasonable restrictions. The competing concepts in this article means that the right is guaranteed, but not in absolute terms. The courts of Pakistan have played a key role in explaining what exactly counts as a “reasonable restriction,”. To understand the scope of this provision, it is necessary to examine what rights Article 18 grants, how the courts have interpreted these rights, and what principles define the balance between individual liberty and state authority.
The Rights under Article 18
Article 18 outlines three closely related freedoms. First, it grants citizens the right to choose and enter any lawful profession. This covers fields such as medicine, law, teaching, or engineering, but with the understanding that certain qualifications may be prescribed by law. Second, it recognizes the right to engage in lawful trade. This means that individuals are generally free to buy, sell, or exchange goods and services, provided that the trade does not involve unlawful or prohibited items. Third, Article 18 secures the right to establish and conduct business ventures. Citizens are permitted to run businesses of their choice, subject again to compliance with the law.
Although the rights are broad, the Constitution itself acknowledges that regulation is sometimes necessary. Article 18 specifically allows the state to regulate professions through licensing, to regulate trade or industry in the interest of free competition, and to reserve certain areas of commerce or industry for exclusive control by the government. The text therefore presents freedom as the general rule but makes space for exceptions where public interest is concerned.
Judicial Interpretation of Article 18
The courts in Pakistan have long emphasized that while Article 18 guarantees important freedoms, those freedoms operate within limits. A landmark decision in PLD 2005 SC 193 brought clarity to the meaning of “reasonable restrictions.” In this case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan relied on Indian jurisprudence, particularly cases interpreting Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, which is the counterpart of Pakistan’s Article 18. The Court affirmed that any limitation placed on the enjoyment of a right must not be arbitrary, nor should it be excessive beyond what is required in the public interest.
Further case laws elaborate that reasonable restriction may not necessarily mean prohibition or prevention completely, except in exceptional circumstances, for example the sale of alcohol (PLD 2005 SC 193). Additionally, there is nothing in this right that allows a person to carry on business wherever he pleases- for example in the street, and such regulation may be subject to regulations as per policy and overall public convenience (AIR 1967 SC 1368).
Similarly, in the regulation of professions such as medicine or law, courts have repeatedly held that licensing requirements are justified in order to ensure public safety and professional competence. By drawing such precedents, the judiciary has built a framework in which Article 18 rights are preserved but not treated as absolute. The right exists in full force so long as regulation is proportionate and tied to legitimate aims.
Balancing State Authority and Individual Freedom
Article 18 balances two competing values: the individual’s right to economic liberty and the state’s responsibility to protect the community. From the individual’s perspective, the freedom to pursue a profession or conduct trade and business is essential to dignity and independence. It allows citizens to earn their livelihoods, explore opportunities, and contribute to national development. From the perspective of the state, however, unrestricted freedom can give rise to harm, whether in the form of unsafe professional practices, monopolistic trade, or exploitative business conduct, thus the state can regulate this right for the general welfare of the people as per 2006 PLD 1523.
The courts have therefore insisted on striking a balance. Citizens retain the right to pursue their chosen economic activities, but the state is justified in stepping in where broader welfare is at stake. The key test, consistently applied by the judiciary, is whether the restriction is reasonable and proportionate.
Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees the freedom of profession, trade, and business, yet acknowledges that these freedoms may be subject to regulation in the public interest. By relying on precedents, the courts have provided a structured understanding of what counts as a reasonable limitation. The overall picture that emerges is one of balance. Individuals are free to pursue their economic goals, but this freedom coexists with the state’s duty to ensure fairness, safety, and justice within society.
Posted by: HA_Law_Graduate
25-08-2025, 12:16 PM
Forum: Constitution and Other Non-Tax Laws نان ٹیکس اور آئین
- No Replies
25-08-2025, 12:16 PM
Forum: Constitution and Other Non-Tax Laws نان ٹیکس اور آئین
- No Replies
Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan is the cornerstone of equality in Pakistani Law. It states simply, that all citizens are equal before the law and entitled to its equal protection; no one shall be discriminated against on the basis of sex alone; and the State may adopt special measures for the protection of women and children.
The first clause, declaring that all citizens are equal before the law, has been central to constitutional litigation. When interpreted, equality here does not mean that everyone must be treated in exactly the same way, regardless of circumstances. Rather, it requires that any difference in treatment must be based on a fair and rational principle. Additionally, In I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041), the Supreme Court explained two major points on which the constitutionality of a law with respect to equality may be determined:
1) Intelligible Differentia: a clear and reasonable distinction that separates one group of citizens from another
2) Rational Nexus: a rational purpose that is essential to the purpose of the law
To summarize, the State must be able to explain both why it has drawn a distinction and how that distinction furthers the law’s objective. If either element is missing, the classification is arbitrary and violates Article 25.
The second clause prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, while the third allows protective provisions for women and children. Together, these clauses reflect a move from mere formal equality to substantive justice. The Constitution recognizes that some groups, due to historical and social disadvantages, may require special treatment to achieve genuine fairness. Courts have generally upheld such affirmative measures as compatible with Article 25, so long as they are proportional and directed toward legitimate aims.
To understand this better, we look at the case of Shirin Munir v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1990 SC 295) the Court examined whether gender-based distinctions under the Constitution could ever be justified. It explained that such distinctions are acceptable only when they are reasonable and serve a clear purpose, like maintaining single-gender schools. But in the case of medical colleges, using quotas to limit women’s access was found unconstitutional. Since most colleges were already co-educational, these restrictions were not protective but discriminatory. The Court stressed that giving preference to less qualified men over capable women violated equality, and it ruled that women must also be allowed to compete freely for open merit seats. The Supreme Court struck down arbitrary preferences in educational admissions based on gender, affirming that the State may not draw distinctions without reasonable basis.
Rights and Citizenship
A crucial feature of Article 25 is its repeated reference to “citizens.” The Constitution frequently distinguishes between rights available to every “person” and those reserved for “citizens.” Rights such as life (Article 9), dignity (Article 14), and fair trial (Article 10A) extend to all persons, which includes foreigners and even juristic entities such as corporations. By contrast, rights like freedom of movement, association, and equality under Article 25 are restricted to citizens. The Constitution itself does not define the term, but Article 260 directs us to statutory law, where the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 defines a citizen is one who acquires nationality by birth, descent, migration at partition, or naturalisation. Citizenship is therefore a legal status, determined by law, that decides who may invoke Article 25.
The implications of this distinction for corporations were drawn out in detail by the Islamabad High Court in PTA v. Pakistan Information Commission (2024 YLR 929). The Court noted that while corporations are legal “persons” capable of holding many rights, they are not citizens. As such, they cannot claim rights explicitly reserved for citizens, such as access to information under Article 19A. This shows that the most civil political rights remain tied to citizenship.
At the same time, PLD 2022 Lahore 756 shows the applicability of Article 25 to a non-citizen person. The Lahore High Court dealt with the arbitrary blocking of a citizen’s computerized national identity card (CNIC). This prevented the individual from functioning in society: banking, travel, and even everyday transactions become impossible. The Court held that cutting off a CNIC without lawful authority effectively strips a citizen of the equal protection guaranteed by Article 25, reducing him to a status less than that of his peers. The court held that equality before the law is meaningless if citizenship itself can be undermined by executive, and that fundamental rights in Articles 8-28 must be granted to all citizens, equally.
Read together, these cases illustrate that Article 25 functions on two levels. It affirms equality as a shield against arbitrary state action, ensuring that no citizen is deprived of rights or status without lawful justification. At the same time, it draws a boundary between citizens and non-citizens, reserving the fullest constitutional protections for those who legally belong to the State.
Essentially, Article 25 equips the courts with a test to strike down unfair distinctions. While it is still a vastly developing jurisprudence, the open-endedness of the Article makes room for an aspiration- equal opportunity for everyone.
The Customs Act, 1969 is more than a revenue law; it is a regulatory framework designed to balance two imperatives: the state’s power to control cross-border flows of goods and the trader’s right to lawful commerce. Seizure represents the state’s coercive power to act swiftly, while adjudication ensures that such action is tested against due process. This article explores both mechanisms with particular attention to Sections 15–17, 171, and 179, as well as the appeals structure and judicial oversight.
Seizure of Goods under the Customs Act
Prohibited and Restricted Goods (Sections 15–16)
The framework begins with the classification of goods. Section 15 deals with complete prohibitions: items such as narcotics, counterfeit currency, obscene literature, or materials deemed dangerous to national security. These cannot be imported under any circumstance, and any attempt to do so makes them immediately liable to seizure.
Section 16 introduces the idea of restricted imports. Goods such as firearms, pharmaceuticals, or sensitive chemicals may enter Pakistan, but only if the importer holds the required license or complies with specified regulatory conditions. When those conditions are ignored or manipulated, the goods become as liable to seizure as those prohibited under Section 15.
Liability to Confiscation (Section 17)
Section 17 ties these two strands together, providing that any goods imported or exported in violation of Sections 15 or 16 are subject to detention and confiscation. The section states that an officer of the rank of Assistant Collector or above may detain goods for up to 15 days, extendable to 30 days with higher approval, to ensure speedy processing.
Procedural Safeguards (Section 171)
Section 171 provides a procedural safeguard against unlawful arrest and detention. It obliges the officer conducting a search, seizure, or arrest to furnish written reasons to the affected party at the time of action. This transparency requirement ensures that the importer or exporter knows the grounds of suspicion from day one. In practice, Section 171 has been invoked by courts to protect traders from seizures unsupported by fair reasoning.
Adjudication Mechanism:
Section 179: Appointment and Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Officers
The movement from enforcement to adjudication begins with Section 179. This provision authorizes the Federal Board of Revenue to appoint customs officers as adjudicating authorities. Jurisdiction of officers depends on value, and may be altered by FBR by notification in the official gazette.
Additional Collector -Unlimited
Deputy Collector - Not more than 800,000
Assistant Collector - Not more than 300,000
Once jurisdiction is established, the process opens with a show-cause notice under Section 180.
Appeals and Revisions
The Customs Act embeds a multi-tiered system of appeals in Chapter XIX: This process starts at the level of the Collector (Appeals), then moves to the Customs Appellate Tribunal, and may proceed to the High Courts on questions of law, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court. Section 195-C also introduces Alternate Dispute Resolution as a non-adversarial option.
Conclusion
Collectively taken, Sections 15 to 17 spell out what constitutes legal and illegal trade, while Section 171 guarantees transparency in seizures. Section 179 ensures that jurisdiction to hear cases is allocated in accordance with pecuniary value. Additional safeguards are then provided through appeals and judicial review.
Seizure is not an ‘objective’ in itself. It is the first step in a chain: adjudication, appeal, judicial review. The Act aims to balance the needs of enforcement with the demands of fairness, so to encourage regulated trade.
Posted by: Nasir Ansari
22-08-2025, 03:00 PM
Forum: Corporate & SECP Matters کمپنیوں کے متعلق
- No Replies
22-08-2025, 03:00 PM
Forum: Corporate & SECP Matters کمپنیوں کے متعلق
- No Replies
Updated: August 20, 2025
- Is a company legally required to fill a casual vacancy on its board of directors?
- Can a Board continue functioning in presence of casual vacancy?
Simple Answer: YES , but do read attached complete answer to understand circumstances.
The World Customs Organization (WCO), established in 1952 as the Customs Co-operation Council (CCC) is an independent intergovernmental body whose mission is to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of Customs administrations.
Today, the WCO represents 186 Customs administrations across the globe that collectively process approximately 98% of world trade. As the global centre of Customs expertise, the WCO is the only international organization with competence in Customs matters and can rightly call itself the voice of the international Customs community.
A brief on history is enclosed.
For updates please visit: WCO Website