| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1501 2020 SLD 1501 2020 PTD 1407 (2020) 122 TAX 27 2020 PTCL 696 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-3757 of 2013 along with 575 petitions, decisionDated: 2nd July, 2020.
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
Dr. Farough Naseem, Abid H. Shaban, Naveed A. Andrabi, Hyder Ali Khan, Ali Almani along with Sanii-ur-Rehman, Mushtaque Hassan Qazi, Arshad Siraj along with Asif Ali Lakhair, Umaima Mansoor Khan, Mustafa Lakhani, Nasir Latif, Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui, Muha
C.P. No. D-3757 of 2013 along with 575 petitions, decisionDated: 2nd July, 2020.
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
Dr. Farough Naseem, Abid H. Shaban, Naveed A. Andrabi, Hyder Ali Khan, Ali Almani along with Sanii-ur-Rehman, Mushtaque Hassan Qazi, Arshad Siraj along with Asif Ali Lakhair, Umaima Mansoor Khan, Mustafa Lakhani, Nasir Latif, Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui, Muha
YAQOOB AHMED THROUGH ATTORNEY AND OTHERSVSFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF LAW, MINISTRY OF LAW SAND OTHERS
Law: Income Support Levy Act, 2013
Section: 3,5,9
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 115
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 25,73
(a) Income Support Levy Act (XXII of 2013) - -Ss.3, 5 & 9 & Preamble-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 25 & 73- Finance Act (IX of 2014), S.10-Income support levy ('the levy') at the rate of 0.5% imposed on the value of Net Moveable Assets- Constitutionality-Income Support Levy Act, 2013, vires of-Plea that imposition of said levy through Income Support Levy Act, 2013, was introduced through Finance Act, 2013 in terms of Art. 73 of the Constitution, whereas, it did not possess the characteristic of a tax, and that it was also discriminatory as it created unreasonable classification within the same class, hence, ultra vires to the Constitution-Held, that levy imposed though Income Support Levy Act, 2013 along with the Money Bill, did not possess the characteristics of a tax, as it was not a common burden for raising revenue to be utilized for general public purpose, on the contrary, it was a levy in the nature of fund to be charged and utilized for a specific purpose i.e. to provide for financial resources for raising an income support fund for the economically distressed persons and their families-Accordingly Income Support Levy Act, 2013 could not be introduced through the Finance Act, 2013 in terms of Art. 73 of the Constitution, thus, it was ultra vires the Constitution-Levy was also discriminatory in nature since it created unreasonable classification within the same class of persons having net moveable assets exceeding Rs. 1 million-Incidence and charge of levy fells unequally upon the existing taxpayers only, who filed or were required to file wealth statement along with income tax returns under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-However, non-existing taxpayers, who were not required or did not file wealth statement and tax returns, in spite of having much higher net moveable wealth exceeding Rs. 1 million, had been excluded from the incidence and charge of such levy, which was in clear violation of Art. 25 of the Constitution-High Court declared and directed that all the notices and the proceedings, including assessment orders passed under S.5 of the Income Support Levy Act, 2013 after repeal of said Act under S.10 of the Finance Act, 2014, in the absence of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492