Islamabad:
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court continued the hearings on petitions contesting the Super Tax, while the Federal Board of Return (FBR) defended the authority of the Parliament to impose the tax.
A constitutional bench of five members led by Judge Amicin Khan heard the arguments of the FBR lawyer, Hafiz Ehsan Khokhar, who argued that article 14 of the finance law had not been modified, “only his objective has changed”.
He argued that the case had not raised questions of legislative competence, adding that taxpayers who had not filed declarations “were now looking for advantages” by the dispute.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, however, pressed Khokhar on the question of whether the National Assembly could adopt a tax invoice outside the annual budget cycle. “Did the Constitution specifically granted this power to Parliament?” He asked.
Khokhar replied that the previous one existed, including in the case of practice and procedure 63-A, and stressed that the decision of the High Court of Islamabad (IHC) overthrew the parties of the tax was “contradictory and not legally sustainable”.
“Whether it is the Parliament or the Supreme Court, each institution is linked under the Constitution,” observed judge Mandokhail, stressing that the high lessons were obliged to follow the judgments of the Supreme Court. The arguments of the Senior Ashter Ashter lawyer started after the end of Khokhar.
Towards the end of the hearing, the additional prosecutor and the lawyer for companies, Makhdomo Ali Khan, approached the rostrum.
The additional prosecutor general informed the bench that the Attorney General would not have oral arguments and rather submit written arguments within two days.
Makhdomer Ali Khan, however, opposed, saying that he could not proceed until these submissions were recorded.
