Minister of Justice Farogh Nasim. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
In the super tax case, the lawyer for various companies, Dr. Farogh Naseem that hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets is a far less dangerous scenario than the Supreme Court overturning its own convictions.
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 latitude 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 with no money while the taxpayers fear that they may eventually become exhausted and leave the country.
He said that Pakistan tried to become liberal like India but India became liberal and then convicted a Kashmiri leader. “That is why it is not enough to simply cite examples of liberalism.”
He reminded the court that it is also meant to examine the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments and determine whether the judiciary calls for evolution or revolution.
Referring to the past, he said Gen Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law succeeded because judges who took oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order considered the public interest. “But Pervez Musharraf’s martial law failed because public interest was not taken into account [by judges].”
He claimed that FBR’s counsel Asma Hamid was currently opposing her senior’s arguments and could even say that she was not bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court.
He said that if even the FCC refused to follow judicial precedents, then a review would be filed against its order, which would be adjudicated by a six-member FCC bench. Dr. Naseem said the tax has already been imposed, which means some will have reserve funds while others will not.
He noted that worldwide taxpayers are informed before a tax is imposed, whereas here the tax is imposed six months later, at a time when the money has already been collected.
He said there was an effort to get the FCC to dismantle 75 years of law, but he was confident the court would not trample on other court decisions.
“Millions of people taking to the streets would be far less dangerous than courts overturning their own convictions,” 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 consequential tax and constitutional disputes in Pakistan’s recent history.
It involves revenue implications running into hundreds of billions of rupees and raises fundamental questions about the taxing power of Parliament, equality before the law and the scope of judicial review in tax matters.
Section 4B was introduced through the Finance Act, 2015, which imposed a “super tax” on high-income earners, particularly banks and other individuals earning income above Rs 500 million.
