Minister of Justice Farogh Nasim. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
In the supertax case, various companies’ lawyer Dr Farogh Naseem argued that hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets was a far less dangerous scenario than a higher judiciary overturning its own judgments.
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 leeway to refuse to comply with the orders of the higher judiciary.
He said the court has to take into account both the FBR and the taxpayers as the FBR wants to ensure that the taxpayers are left without money, while the taxpayers fear running out and leaving the country.
He said Pakistan tried to become liberal like India, but India became liberal and then condemned a Kashmiri leader. “It is therefore not enough to cite examples of liberalism.”
He reminded the Court that it is also supposed to examine the 26th and 27th Constitutional Amendments and determine whether the justice system requires evolution or revolution.
Referring to the past, he said General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law was successful because the judges who took oath under the interim constitutional order took public interest into account. “However, General Pervez Musharraf’s martial law failed because public interest was not taken into account. [by judges]”.
He argued that FBR lawyer Asma Hamid was currently opposing her superior’s arguments and could even claim that she was not bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and high courts.
He said that if even the FCC refused to follow court precedent, then a review of its order would be filed and judged by a six-member FCC bench. Dr Naseem said the tax has already been imposed, meaning some will have reserve funds while others will not.
He pointed out that everywhere in the world, 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 attempt to have the FCC dismantle 75 years of legislation, but he was confident the court would not trample other court rulings.
“Millions of people taking to the streets would be far less dangerous than courts overturning their own judgments,” 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 significant tax and constitutional disputes in Pakistan’s recent history.
This has 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 by the Finance Act, 2015, imposing a “super tax” on high-income earners, particularly banking companies and others earning income above Rs 500 million.
