ISLAMABAD: During the hearing of the super tax case, lawyer Dr Farogh Naseem argued that public protests are less dangerous than courts overturning their own past decisions.
The case was heard by a three-member bench of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) led by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. Dr Naseem, a former federal law minister, presented detailed arguments.
He said the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has some flexibility and may refuse to fully follow decisions of higher courts in certain situations.
According to him, the court should consider both sides. He claimed the FBR tries to collect as much tax as possible, leaving taxpayers with little money, while taxpayers fear financial pressure may force them to leave the country.
He said Pakistan tried to follow liberal examples like India, but added that simply calling a system “liberal” does not solve legal problems.
Dr Naseem reminded the court that it must also review the 26th and 27th Constitutional Amendments and decide whether the judiciary needs reform or major change.
Referring to history, he said General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law survived because judges considered public interest, while General Pervez Musharraf’s martial law failed because public interest was ignored.
He also said FBR’s lawyer, Asma Hamid, could argue against her own senior’s past positions and may even claim she is not bound by Supreme Court or High Court decisions.
He added that if even the FCC ignores past court rulings, its decision can be reviewed by a larger six-member FCC bench.
Dr Naseem said the super tax has already been imposed, meaning some taxpayers had funds to pay while others did not.
He pointed out that internationally, taxpayers are informed before a tax is imposed, but in Pakistan the tax was applied months later, after money had already been earned or spent.
He said there was an attempt to undo 75 years of tax laws, but expressed confidence that the court would respect earlier judicial decisions.
He repeated that courts reversing their own judgments would be more harmful than large public protests. Dr Farogh Naseem will continue his arguments.
The dispute over Sections 4B and 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is one of Pakistan’s most important tax and constitutional cases.
It involves hundreds of billions of rupees in revenue and raises major questions about Parliament’s power to tax, equality under the law, and the role of courts in tax matters.
Section 4B was added in 2015 through the Finance Act and introduced a “super tax” on high-income individuals and companies, especially banks and those earning more than Rs500 million.
