On Monday, the Supreme Court heard petitions that challenged the introduction of a super tax on confidential means, with a five-member constitutional bench led by justice Aminuddin Khan, who questioned whether such a tax is justified when the income tax itself is exempt.
During the hearing, justice quoted Muhammad Ali Mazhar section 53 of the Income Tax Regulation, which gives exceptions and asked if a Trust Fund could be treated as private property.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi warned that repeated super -tax deductions could erode pension benefits over time, observing that an initial tax could grow significantly and reduce employees’ expected payments.
Justice Rizvi also questioned how a clerk of advance tax could be calculated, a concern that was repeated by Justice Mazhar, who noted that advance payments would be difficult without final deserves.
Further lawsuit claimed that the second schedule gives exceptions to exemptions, including from super tax, but maintained that the government can impose extra taxes if tax needs arise.
Advises Asma Hamid opposed that Provident Funds enjoys statutory relief and that a super -tax contradicts regulatory intention.
The bench noted that the responsibility for super tax pay is mentioned in the relevant schedule, but questioned whether the government can impose a tax when the income tax itself cannot be used.
Read: SC questioning super -tax ‘burden to ordinary man’
Later, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) lawyer Hafiz Ehsan began short posts and said he would help the court on legal and constitutional points and adopt arguments already presented by Hamid.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar urged advice to conduct arguments on key questions during the next hearing. Hafiz Ehsan only requested for ten minutes, but Justice Aminuddin Khan noted that the session could not continue due to a judge’s other obligations, which was given the postponement.
The consultation was postponed until Tuesday.
The petitions challenge the legality of the super -tax imposed on certain sectors, arguing that it exceeds the government’s constitutional authority.
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 and textiles, citing the need to raise extra revenue for financial stabilization.
Petitions that challenge the tax are filed before the supreme court of individuals and organizations. At the previous hearing, the bench was assessed by FBR that no one had contested Lahore High Court’s (LHC) judgment, maintaining the legality of the super tax imposed under section 4C of the income tax word, 2001, while reducing its rate from 10% to 4% for 16 sectors, including banking and offering partial relief.
Earlier this year, the Apex Court asked whether the center could distribute super -tax revenue to provinces, noting that although the tax has been extended since 2016, no funds were used for the specified purpose.
Read more: Supreme Court CB questions the distribution of super -tax funds to provinces
During a recent hearing, the bench raised concerns about the effect of the super tax on ordinary citizens, Justice Mazhar observed that whether it was a cement bag or a liquid natural gas dispatch, “the whole burden comes down to the ordinary man”.
“The business will flourish if we make things easier for people,” he added.
“Don’t discourage taxpayers – when you do, people end up leaving the country,” Justice Mandokhail had warned in a similar way.
Hamid had then clarified that only 15 sectors of income that exceeded RS300 million were responsible for the super tax and that no company had required an inability to pay. The bench pressed FBR to explain why distinctions were created between the taxpayers, which emphasized that budgetary measures should not move the burden back to the public.
