A five-member constitutional bench (CB) led by Justice Aminuddin Khan took on Monday a case relating to the introduction of super tax.
The Federal Board of Revenue’s (FBR) adviser Asma Hamid began with opening arguments. She considered the court that no taxpayer had challenged Lahore High Court’s (LHC) judgment, maintaining the legality of the super tax imposed under section 4C of the Income Tax Regulation, 2001, while reducing its rate for several industries.
She added that Islamabad High Court (IHC) had already handed down decisions on both sections of the case and noted that the 89 petitions had submitted applications in IHC in 2022.
However, a three-judge bench by LHC, led by Justice Jawad Hassan, had rejected petitions that contested the tax for the tax and gave, however, that the government has the authority to introduce such tax under the Finance Act 2022.
During the hearing today, justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned what the common factor was in all court decisions and sought a brief overview of all decisions submitted to court.
Hamid informed the bench that most of the petitions in the case before LHC had already approached IHC first.
Read: Supreme Court CB questions the distribution of super -tax funds to provinces
The bench postponed the consultation until 1 p.m. 9.30 tomorrow (Tuesday).
Super tax
The super tax is an additional tax on high -performance individuals, businesses and industries that are largely aimed at large companies. In the federal budget 2022-23, the government introduced up to 10% super tax on larger sectors, including cement, steel, sugar, oil and gas, fertilizers, banks, textiles and others, with reference to the need to raise extra revenue for financial stabilization.
Petitions were filed for SC by individuals and organizations that challenged the super tax introduced by the PML-N government in 2015 to raise funds for people displaced by Operation Zarb-E-AZB.
Earlier this year, the supreme court asked whether the federal government could distribute super -tax revenue to provinces. Attorneys argued that Levy, introduced in 2016 to finance displaced persons, has since been extended, but no funds have been used for the specified purpose.
