LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has granted time to federal government and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to file their replies as well as extended stay against recovery of advance tax from marriage halls.
Justice Shahid Jamil Khan issued this order while hearing petitions moved by owners of the marriage halls, hotels, commercial lawns and clubs challenging amendment to Section 236D of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 under Finance Act 2018.
A deputy attorney general and legal adviser of the FBR sought more time from the court to submit replies to the petitions on August 28. The judge allowed the request and adjourned hearing until October 25 extending the stay against coercive measures for the recovery of the advance tax from the halls.
Counsel of the petitioners, AK Dogar, argued that Article 18 of the Constitution guaranteed that every citizen had the right to conduct lawful trade or business and no law could be enacted to abridge or deny the fundamental right of freedom of trade and business.
He contended that the previously every person running a business of marriage halls, hotel or lawns was required to pay advance tax at the rate of five percent of the bill under Section 236D of the Income Tax Ordinance.
However, he said, this section had been amended by introducing a proviso, which stated that the advance tax shall be payable in big cities at the rate of Rs20,000 per function. The counsel pleaded that in any case even if the bill was lower the owner of a marriage hall shall still have to pay Rs20,000 per function.
He argued that the advance tax could be legally payable on percentage basis and its amount could not be fixed. The counsel asked the court to declare the amendment made to section 236D of the income tax ordinance in the rate of advance tax as without lawful authority and void being inconsistent with fundamental right of trade and business.
Court moved for bail: Usman Qayyum, the accused of millions of corruption in Lahore Parking Company, approached the Lahore High Court for his bail here on Tuesday.
The petitioner moved the court through his counsel saying that the NAB authorities took him into custody on baseless grounds. The counsel said he also underwent 45-day physical remand but the NAB officials could not find anything against the law. He said the NAB investigators failed to trace anything beyond his known sources of income and his assets were clear.
