| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2601 = 2020 SLD 2601 = 2020 CLC 1742 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. 1849 of 2016 and 2018 others and Suit No.2181 of2015 and 35 others, decided on 21-07-2020. Dates of hearing:11th, 25th November, 2019 and 6th July, 2020.
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE, ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE
Naveed A. Andrabi, Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, Khalid Javed Khan, Mansoor-ul-Arfin, Rashid Anwar, Abid H. Shaban, Arshad Siraj, Hyder Ali Khan, Ali Aziz along with Sami-ur-Rehman, Pooja Kalpana, Munawar Hussain, Jawaid Farooqi, Lubna Pervez, Qazi Umair Ali, Shaf
C.P. No. 1849 of 2016 and 2018 others and Suit No.2181 of2015 and 35 others, decided on 21-07-2020. Dates of hearing:11th, 25th November, 2019 and 6th July, 2020.
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE, ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE
Naveed A. Andrabi, Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, Khalid Javed Khan, Mansoor-ul-Arfin, Rashid Anwar, Abid H. Shaban, Arshad Siraj, Hyder Ali Khan, Ali Aziz along with Sami-ur-Rehman, Pooja Kalpana, Munawar Hussain, Jawaid Farooqi, Lubna Pervez, Qazi Umair Ali, Shaf
PETITIONER(S): M/S HBL STOCK FUND THROUGH TRUSTEE AND OTHERS
VS
RESPONDENT(S): ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE AND OTHERS
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 4B,4
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 72,25
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss.4B 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.72 25 Fourth Sched.---Super tax for rehabilitation of temporarily displaced persons---Tax to be levied by law only---Nature of super tax and distinction of super tax from fee---Procedure with respect to Money Bill---Bill not deemed to be a money bill---Specific purpose of tax mentioned in the taxing provision---Petitioners impugned imposition of super-tax via S.4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on the ground, inter alia, that same was not a money bill in terms of Art.73(3) of the Constitution, that said tax was tantamount to double-taxation and that same suffered from various Constitutional defects---Validity---Super tax imposed through S.4B of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was independent, separate and distinct from income tax charged under S.4 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and had been imposed on a particular class of persons---Legislature was competent to choose a particular class of persons for purposes of charging tax at rates as may be specified without discrimination within same class of persons---Classification created by impugned provision was not unreasonable and did not create any discrimination within the said classification---Nature of super tax was not confiscatory in nature---Said super tax did not possess characteristics of fee as there as not element of quid pro quo---High Court observed that impugned super tax did not amount to double-taxation nor offended Art.25 of the Constitution and that Legislative competence under Art.73 of the Constitution existed to impose the same---Constitutional petitions were dismissed. Mumtaz Hussain Khan v. Additional Commissioner 2016 PTD 1667; Iqbal Zafar Jhagra v. Federation of Pakistan 2014 SCMR 220; Shakeel Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan 2016 PTD 577; Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 329; Workers Welfare Funds v. East Pakistan Chrome PLD 2017 SC 28; Federation of Pakistan v. Durrani Ceramics 2014 SCMR 1630; Collector of Customs v. Sheikh Spinning Mills 1999 SCMR 1402; Sheikh Muhammad Ismail v. Chief Cotton Inspector PLD 1966 SC 388; Pakcom Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011…