ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday continued hearings on petitions challenging the super tax, as the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) defended parliament’s authority to impose the levy.
A five-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard arguments from FBR counsel Hafiz Ehsan Khokhar, who maintained that Section 14 of the Finance Act had not been changed, “only its purpose altered.”
He argued that the case did not raise questions of legislative competence, adding that taxpayers who had failed to file returns were now “seeking benefits” through litigation.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, however, pressed Khokhar on whether the National Assembly could pass a tax bill outside of the annual budget cycle. “Has the Constitution specifically granted Parliament this power?” he asked.
Khokhar replied that precedent existed, including in the 63-A Practice and Procedure case, and stressed that the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) ruling striking down parts of the tax was “contradictory and not legally sustainable.”
“Whether it is parliament or the Supreme Court, every institution is bound under the Constitution,” Justice Mandokhail observed, emphasising that High Courts were obliged to follow apex court judgments. Arguments from senior lawyer Ashter Ausaf began after Khokhar concluded.
Toward the end of the hearing, Additional Attorney General and the companies’ counsel, Makhdoom Ali Khan, approached the rostrum.
The Additional Attorney General informed the bench that the Attorney General would not be presenting oral arguments and would instead submit written arguments within two days.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, however, objected, saying he could not proceed until those submissions were placed on record.
