Bio Amla Shampoo owner says company wrongly penalized due to confusion

ISLAMABAD: Bio Amla Shampoo owners have clarified that they are a legally separate entity from the private limited company (Forvil Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.) facing alleged tax evasion charges, and they hold a distinct trademark for Bio Amla Shampoo.

The owner of Forvil Cosmetics, Muhammad Awais, told media on Friday that the Forvil Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.and Forvil Cosmetics are two different companies. His company was wrongly penalized due to confusion created by past disputes and misidentification by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), despite having no involvement in the tax case. The owner decided to clarify his company’s official position in response to news reports and official letters that mistakenly linked the current operating firm to another entity facing tax evasion charges.

Bio Amla has been a well-known household brand in Pakistan since the 1980s, originally operated as a family business. In 2013, the family formally separated.

He alleged that one of the separated partners, Zakauddin Sheikh, allegedly registered a separate company, Forvil Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., while the remaining family continued operations under the existing Association of Persons (AOP) structure, also named Forvil Cosmetics, registered with the Registrar of Firms in Peshawar, he accused.

While Sheikh held the basic Bio Amla word mark (Trademark No. 87611), the AOP firm registered a distinct trademark for Bio Amla Shampoo with full label design (Trademark No. 344316). The two trademarks are legally separate and operated by different entities.

He levelled allegations that Sheikh’s Forvil Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Faced tax proceedings and his assets and intellectual property were allegedly attached as part of recovery actions. The current AOP firm maintains it had no involvement in those tax issues. Despite this, in 2023, the FBR allegedly mistakenly advised the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) to cancel all licenses under the Bio Amla name. As a result, licenses held by the unrelated AOP firm since 2016 were also revoked.

The AOP firm approached FBR and the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) to help clear the case. FTO ruled in their favour. In May 2024, the FBR issued a clearance letter confirming that there were no recoveries or legal issues against the AOP firm or its trademark.

Following this, PSQCA reissued a fresh license to the AOP firm in April 2025. However, once again, FBR officials were misled by conflicting claims and referred the matter back to PSQCA to cancel their license.

The firm filed writ petitions in the Lahore High Court to clarify that it has no legal or business links with the private limited company facing tax action, and that such misidentification is causing repeated commercial and reputational harm to them. LHC has already issued notices to FBR and PSQCA on the subject matter and in the meanwhile, LHC has issued restraining order against the FBR and PSQCA from taking any adverse order against Forvil Cosmetics, the AOP firm.

The AOP firm has requested all relevant authorities to accurately reflect the legal distinction between the two entities and avoid further confusion.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025