ATIR Lahore says super tax adjustable against refunds
ISLAMABAD: The Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue, Lahore, has held that Super Tax, while being an independent charge for levy and computation, still qualifies as “tax due under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001” and can therefore be adjusted against any available refund or excess tax.
Setting aside orders that refused such adjustment, the tribunal clarified that the Commissioner must first examine and apply any verified refundable amount before initiating coercive recovery under Sections 138 and 140, and cannot reject adjustment merely on the ground that super tax is a separate charge.
READ ALSO: Super tax on up to Rs500m income abolished
Recovery of the remaining Rs58.27 million super tax demands for the taxpayer was stayed, with directions to the Commissioner to verify the claimed Rs230.955 million refunds for Tax Year 2025 and adjust it against the demand, recovering only the balance, if any, thereafter through a speaking order.
The tribunal held, in substance, that section 4C super tax is an independent charge for purposes of levy and computation, but it is still a “tax due under the Ordinance” and, therefore, an available refund/excess tax can be adjusted against it under section 170(3)(a).
The key findings of the order revealed that the case was not about claiming withholding tax credit inside the computation of section 4C liability. The taxpayer had already accepted the super tax liability and paid Rs12.648 million. The dispute was only whether the remaining Rs58.27 million could be adjusted against the refundable income tax of Rs230.955 million shown in the return. The tribunal treated this as a matter of appropriation of refund against demand, not computation of super tax.
The tribunal distinguished CM Pak. It held that CM Pak dealt with the adjustment of withholding taxes/tax credits against the computation of section 4C liability. It did not decide that an available refund under section 170 can never be adjusted against a section 4C demand. Therefore, the Commissioner Appeals misapplied CM Pak by treating “withholding tax adjustment” and “refund adjustment” as the same thing.
The tribunal held that section 170(3)(a) is wide. Once the Commissioner is satisfied that tax has been overpaid, he “shall” apply the excess in reduction of “any other tax due” from the taxpayer under the Ordinance. Since section 4C super tax is imposed, determined, payable and recoverable under the Ordinance, it falls within this expression.
The tribunal also held that recovery under sections 138 and 140 cannot be started or continued by ignoring an available refund. If the department already holds money refundable or adjustable to the taxpayer, it must first examine and apply that amount, if legally available, before attaching bank accounts or taking coercive recovery action. Rule 210B was relied upon because it requires satisfaction that no refund is available for adjustment before section 140 recovery is approved.
On the department’s possible objection that a refund is application-dependent under section 170(1), the tribunal held that this is an incomplete reading of section 170. Section 170(1) and 170(4) regulate the taxpayer’s formal claim for refund/payment. However, section 170(3)(a) independently prescribes the statutory order of adjustment once excess tax is found: first against other tax due, then against other outstanding liabilities, and only thereafter refund of the balance. Therefore, the department cannot ignore an apparent excess merely because a separate refund application has not culminated in a refund order.
The tribunal clarified the limit of its finding: an unverified or disputed refund does not automatically wipe out a section 4C demand. The Commissioner may verify whether the refund is actually due, reduced by other liabilities, or otherwise unavailable. But he must examine it and pass a speaking order; he cannot reject adjustment merely because section 4C is an independent charge.
The relief granted was that the orders were set aside to the extent they refused consideration of the refund adjustment. Recovery of the section 4C demand was stayed until the Commissioner examines the taxpayer’s refund claim of Rs230.95 million for tax year 2025 under section 170. If a refund is found due and available, it must be adjusted against the super tax demand, and only the balance, if any, may be recovered. If no refund is found due or available, reasons must be recorded in a speaking order, and then recovery may proceed according to law.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026