Law Minister Farogh Nasim. PHOTO: ARCHIVE
ISLAMABAD:
In the super tax case, multi-company lawyer Dr Farogh Naseem argued that hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets is a far less dangerous scenario than the higher judiciary overturning its own rulings.
When a three-member bench of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), headed by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, resumed hearing the tax case, Dr Naseem, who served as federal law minister in the PTI government, presented detailed arguments.
The lawyer argued that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has some scope to refuse to comply with decisions of the superior judiciary.
He said the court must consider both the FBR and the taxpayers as the FBR wants to ensure that the taxpayers are left out of money while the taxpayers fear that they will eventually run out and leave the country.
He said Pakistan tried to become liberal like India, but India became liberal and then condemned a Kashmiri leader. “Therefore, it is not enough to cite examples of liberalism.”
He reminded the court that it must also examine the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments and determine whether the judiciary requires evolution or revolution.
Referring to the past, he said that General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law was successful because the judges who took oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order considered the public interest. “However, General Pervez Musharraf’s martial law failed because public interest was not taken into account. [by judges]”.
He maintained that FBR lawyer Asma Hamid is currently opposing the arguments of her superior and might even claim that she is not bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court or high courts.
He said that if even the FCC refused to follow judicial precedents, then a review of his order would be filed, which would be adjudicated by a six-member FCC court. Naseem said the tax has already been imposed, meaning some will have reserve funds while others will not.
He noted that around the world taxpayers are informed before a tax is imposed, while here the tax is imposed six months later, when the money has already been collected.
He said there was an attempt to have the FCC dismantle 75 years of legislation, but he was confident the court would not trample other court decisions.
“Millions of people taking to the streets would be much less dangerous than courts overturning their own sentences,” he said. Dr. Farogh Naseem will continue his arguments today.
The controversy surrounding Sections 4B and 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 constitutes one of the most significant fiscal and constitutional disputes in the recent history of Pakistan.
It involves tax implications running into hundreds of billions of rupees and raises fundamental questions about the taxing power of Parliament, equality before law and the scope of judicial review in tax matters.
Section 4B was introduced by the Finance Act, 2015, which imposes a “super tax” on high-income earners, particularly banking companies and other earners with incomes exceeding Rs 500 million.
