| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 459 2022 SLD 459 = 2022 PTCL 346 = (2022) 125 TAX 277 = 2022 PLD 420 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition Nos. 490-K to 561-K, 638-K to 725-K, 775-K to785, 787- K to 792-K, 794-K to 821-K, 894-K to 950-K, 952-Kto 1007-K, 1009-K to 1052-K, 1057-K to 1144-K, 1146-K to1151-K, 1153-K to 1196-K, 1203-K to 1230-K, 1233-K to1244-K, 1257-K to 1267-
MR., JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA, MR., JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN
For the Petitioner: Dr. Shah Nawaz, ASC (In all cases) Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, AOR.
Civil Petition Nos. 490-K to 561-K, 638-K to 725-K, 775-K to785, 787- K to 792-K, 794-K to 821-K, 894-K to 950-K, 952-Kto 1007-K, 1009-K to 1052-K, 1057-K to 1144-K, 1146-K to1151-K, 1153-K to 1196-K, 1203-K to 1230-K, 1233-K to1244-K, 1257-K to 1267-
MR., JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA, MR., JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN
For the Petitioner: Dr. Shah Nawaz, ASC (In all cases) Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, AOR.
Commissioner Inland Revenue
VS
Muhammad Mustafa Gigi
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 2(38A),2(68)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 70,73,79,81,125,26
Law: Income Support Levy Act, 2013
Section: 9,5,3,6,7
(a) Income Support Levy Act, 2013 [since repealed]--- ----Ss. 3, 9 & Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 70, 73(2), 73(3), 78(1), 81(e) & 177---Income Support Levy imposed through the Income Support Levy Act, 2013---Vires of---Income Support Levy Act, 2013 ( the 2013 Act ) itself did not state that the Income Support Levy was or constituted a tax or taxation--Examination of the 2013 Act made it abundantly clear that it neither came within the definition of tax nor taxation; it was social legislation with the declared objective of poverty alleviation---Since the 2013 Act was not a Money Bill it had to be passed by both Houses, as provided by Art. 70 of the Constitution, but as this was not done in the present case the 2013 Act never became law, and, the tax authorities (petitioner) could not take action pursuant to it---High Court had rightly found the Income Support Levy Act, 2013 to be unconstitutional---Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused. Article 70 through to Article 77 of the Constitution prescribes the Legislative Procedure to be followed to enact legislation. Except Money Bills, every proposed piece of legislation is introduced as a bill in either of the two Houses, that is, the National Assembly or the Senate. Once the bill is passed by the House in which it is introduced, it is transmitted to the other House for voting. However, a Money Bill can only originate in the National Assembly. A Money Bill also does not have to be transmitted to the Senate for voting. In the present case it was incorrectly assumed that the Income Support Levy Act, 2013 ( the 2013 Act ) was a Money Bill, or formed part of a Money Bill, and on this assumption, it was not transmitted to the Senate after it was passed by the National Assembly. The Constitution defines what constitutes a Money Bill in Article 73(2) of the Constitution, which is further clarified by Article 73(3). The 2013 Act itself did not state that the Income Support Levy was or constituted a tax or taxation. Leaving semantics aside, an examination of the 2013 Act makes it abundantly clear that it neither came within the definition of tax nor taxation. The 2013 Act…