Islamabad: Five judges Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, a member of the Supreme Court constitutional judge, on Tuesday questioned whether specific authority could be granted to the National Assembly under the constitution Tax legislation Operate outside this fiscal year.
Under Judge Aminuddin Khan, the CB heard several petitions filed by taxpayers, challenging the constitutional virus of Article 4C (ITO) of the revised Income Tax Ordinance, in 2001, applicable to the 2023 tax year.
However, Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar, senior legal counsel representing the Federal Revenue Service (FBR), believes that there is no question about the legislative capacity of the National Assembly in this case.
During the hearing, additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman told the court that the federal government would submit a written reply within a few days.
On April 4, 2024, an IHC court heard by then-Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri while listening to an internal litigation appeal, directing one of the respondents to continue to pay tax liability under Section 4C, amended by the Finance Act.
The super tax proposed by the PML-N government in 2015 applies to the wealthy, earning over Rs 50 crore and companies associations. It imposes a 4% tax on the revenue of bank companies and 3% of other sectors to fund the recovery of temporary displays.
Mr. Khokhar defended the constitutionality of Articles 4B and 4C of the ITO, stressing in 2001 that the Parliament had the exclusive right to tax under Article 77. He believes that the adoption of the Financial Act in 2015 and 2022 and the super tax proposed in 2022 is a legal action of fiscal power.
He noted that Article 4B of the super taxes for all High Courts was initially raised for high-income taxpayers. Issues such as double taxation, violations of Article 25 and legislative capacity have been decided to support the federal government.
Mr Khokhar said that turning to Article 4C, introduced in 2022, expanded the taxation through progressive tablets and sector-specific categories, and said the High Court made a mistake by rebuilding the statutory plan. He believes that this constitutes judicial legislation.
He stressed that under Article 199, the court can only remove laws that clearly violate basic rights rather than violate tax plans. Otherwise, the High Court has committed judicial rule and undermined the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary.
Regarding the claim that super tax constitutes a double taxation, he called the argument “completely misconceptualized” and noted that under Articles 77 and 47 of the Federal Legislative List, Parliament has the full power to demand taxation of income other than agricultural irrelevant.
Section 2 (63) of Taxes, “Taxes” include super taxes, while Section 3 provides that income taxes shall be charged for each tax year explicitly provided. Therefore, super taxes are not taxed separately, but are an additional component of income taxes for high-income earners, which can be equivalent to surcharges or advance taxes.
Posted at Dawn on September 17, 2025
