A Constitutional Bank of five members (CB) headed by Judge Aminuddin Khan assumed on Monday a case related to the imposition of super taxes.
The lawyer of the Federal Income Board (FBR) Astma Hamid began with opening arguments. She informed the Court that no taxpayer had challenged the verdict of the Superior Court of Lahore (LHC), maintaining the legality of the super tax imposed under section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, while reducing its rate for several industries.
He added that the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) had already issued failures in both sections of the matter, noting that 89 petitioners had submitted requests at the IHC in 2022.
A bank from three LHC judges led by Judge Jawwad Hassan had dismissed the requests that defy the constitutionality of the tax and ruled that the Government has the authority to impose said tax under the Finance Law 2022. However, the Court reduced the tax rate Super to 4% for 16 sectors, including banks, the offer of relief on requests.
During today’s hearing, Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned what was the common factor in all judicial decisions and requested a brief summary of all decisions presented before the court.
Hamid informed the bank that in the case before LHC, most petitioners had already approached the first.
Read: Supreme Court CB Questions Distribution of Super Prosecutors to Provinces
The bank postponed the audience until 9.30 am in tomorrow (Tuesday).
Super taxes
Super taxes is an additional tax on high -income individuals, companies and industries, largely addressed to large corporations. In federal budget 2022–23, the Government imposed up to 10% of Super Tax on the main sectors, including cement, steel, sugar, oil and gas, fertilizers, banks, textiles and others, citing the need to increase additional income for economic stabilization.
The requests were presented to the SC by individuals and organizations that defy the super taxes introduced by the PML-N government in 2015 to raise funds for people displaced by the ZARB-E-AZB operation.
Earlier this year, the Superior Court questioned whether the federal government could distribute super fiscal income to the provinces. The lawyers argued that the tax, introduced in 2016 to finance displaced persons, has been extended since then, but funds have not been used for the declared purpose.
