CB orders transfer of tax appeals from high courts
A five-member Constitutional Bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan gave the order while hearing the appeals against super tax. The court ordered the registrars of both the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and the Lahore High Court (LHC) to provide list and records of the pending tax intra-court appeals.
At the outset of the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer for various companies, pointed out that cases were pending in the high courts. He added that the Supreme Court had the constitutional powers to transfer pending cases to it.
Sitting on the bench, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether a written application would be required for the transfer of the cases. On that Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that under Article 186A, the Supreme Court had the constitutional authority to refer a case from a high court to the Supreme Court.
Khan further said in his arguments that the government could not directly impose the super tax, as it was mandatory to give a reason for such a levy. He added that there must be exceptional circumstances for levying the super tax.
The lawyer argued that the Supreme Court had declared additional tax as invalid in its several decisions, adding that imposing additional tax was also against fundamental rights. The court ordered the transfer of appeals and adjourned the hearing until Thursday (today).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
NA passes Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2024
The National Assembly on Wednesday passed the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2024 by a majority vote enacting it into law after rejecting opposition proposals amid protests in the House. The House suspended its routine agenda to take up the bill. Speaker Ayaz Sadiq ordered a headcount on the bill's passage, which showed 125 votes in favour and 45 against. Opposition members protested and shouted slogans during the process. PTI chairperson Barrister Gohar Ali Khan argued that the bill violated Article 10 of the Constitution and fundamental rights by allowing detention without trial for up to three months, extendable by another three. He said no law could be enacted in contravention of the Constitution or the Supreme Court's rulings, and noted past instances of prolonged detention without due process. Read: HRCP urges govt to scrap anti-terror bill Maulana Fazlur Rehman questioned the need for such a law, recalling similar measures in the Musharraf era that he said treated citizens as 'born criminals'. The opposition maintained that the law could be misused, while the government insisted it was necessary to address the prevailing security situation. Oil reserves Separately, Pakistan People's Party (PPP) lawmakers sought clarification from the government over US President Donald Trump's past remarks about vast oil reserves in Pakistan. On July 31, Trump took to social media to announce a new deal between the US and Pakistan for the joint development of Pakistan's "massive oil reserves". PPP's Dr Nafisa Shah questioned why the government had not provided information if such reserves existed. 'The US President is telling us about oil reserves in Pakistan, but why is the Government of Pakistan not informing us?' Read More: Trump wins his deal, Pakistan eyes the future Responding to the call to attention notice, Federal Minister for Petroleum Ali Pervaiz Malik said Pakistan had recently awarded oil exploration rights to companies from Kuwait, Turkey, and other countries. He confirmed the presence of reserves but said their exact size could only be determined after exploration work began. He added that three major gas fields—larger than the Sui field—had been discovered, and exploration had commenced in Hyderabad. Malik noted that countries such as China and the US possessed technology to verify the presence of oil and gas rapidly. Dr Shah also questioned whether Trump's remarks, including that Pakistan could one day export oil to India, were intended to pressure India into concessions, given that Pakistani ministers claimed they did not yet know the reserves' size. PPP lawmaker Syed Naveed Qamar asked if exploration opportunities would be open to countries beyond the US. Malik replied that rights would be available to multiple companies.
Business Recorder
12 hours ago
- Business Recorder
NA Speaker extends olive branch as PTI stages walkout
ISLAMABAD: In a tense and tumultuous session of the National Assembly on Tuesday, Speaker Ayaz Sadiq extended an olive branch to the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), urging dialogue just moments before the party staged a dramatic walkout. Presiding over the session, NA Speaker Sadiq reaffirmed his role as the custodian of the House and declared his willingness to facilitate negotiations between the government and PTI. 'Differences of opinion are the beauty of democracy,' he noted. 'But it is dialogue that ultimately serves the national interest.' Despite the appeal, PTI lawmakers stage a walkout from the House, citing ongoing grievances over what they described as infringements upon their parliamentary privileges and conviction of the party's senior leaders. The Speaker's remarks came in response to PTI leader Asad Qaiser's sharp intervention, during which he accused the government of systematically marginalising the opposition. Sadiq pushed back, asserting that 'the Constitution, law, traditions and rules apply equally to all,' and stressed the need for mutual respect and adherence to democratic norms. In a veiled reference to PTI's demands for production orders, Sadiq compared the situation with India, where opposition leader Rahul Gandhi was recently arrested without any such orders being issued. He described the National Assembly as a 'grand jirga', calling on all political actors to work constructively in support of Parliament. In one of the most startling moments of the day, Federal Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazir Tarar revealed he had been offered Rs70 million to represent a shadowy political figure in court – a proposal he said he unequivocally rejected. The bombshell revelation came amid heated debate over judicial independence, political vendettas, and the state's aggressive pursuit of PTI leaders. The opposition PTI's Latif Khosa was especially scathing, branding the post-26th constitutional amendment period as a death knell' for both parliamentary sovereignty and judicial independence. 'The Assembly and judiciary have been buried,' he said, accusing courts of blocking access to lawyers and increasing fees to restrict justice for ordinary citizens. Tarar strongly denied any government meddling in PTI-related court cases, attributing fee hikes to Supreme Court policy. 'I was offered Rs70 million to appear against a political personality (…) I turned it down,' he stated, without naming the individual involved. As debate intensified, the chamber descended into a broader confrontation over military courts, the limits of parliamentary privilege, and the treatment of detained PTI leaders. PTI's Iqbal Afridi accused Speaker Sadiq of enabling the forceful removal of ten opposition lawmakers and issued a stark warning: 'Tomorrow, PTI's Speaker will sit here. Retribution will be harsh.' Sadiq, unshaken, responded coldly, 'This chair is temporary and it changes in the blink of an eye.' The PTI lawmakers expressed deep unrest, insisting their communities wanted peace, not renewed operations in Bajaur and other parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Minister of State for Interior Talal Chaudhry briefed the House on ongoing intelligence-based operations (IBOs) under the National Action Plan (NAP), coordinated closely with provincial authorities to combat terrorism. About the demolition of a mosque and seminary on Murree Road, Chaudhry dismissed allegations of state overreach. He stated that the relocation had been carried out after extensive dialogue with the seminary's management, not through any sudden or unilateral action. A new facility, valued at Rs140-150 million and now housing 185 students, had already been constructed. 'Mosques and seminaries are sacred to us,' he said. 'No step was taken without proper respect, dialogue and thorough documentation.' He further rejected claims of a planned overnight operation against religious seminaries in the capital as 'entirely baseless', adding that any future actions would follow legal protocols and involve consultation with religious leaders and planning authorities. A 48-hour consultation period was agreed following discussions with Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) leadership and local clerics. A final decision would be made upon the return of Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi from abroad. In a separate intervention, Minister of State for Finance Bilal Azhar Kayani addressed longstanding concerns regarding tax exemptions in the former FATA and PATA regions. He clarified that a 10 per cent General Sales Tax (GST) had been levied only on locally produced and sold goods, while income tax exemptions remained intact. 'These regions have made tremendous sacrifices during the war on terror,' he said. 'Their preferential treatment remains a collective national responsibility.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
14 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC enacts Supreme Court Rules 2025
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court enacted the Supreme Court Rules, 2025, which has revoked Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The new rules are being applied with effect from August 6, 2025. However, any proceedings pending under the revoked Rules by way of an application, petition, appeal, reference, review; etc., on the commencement of these Rules, shall be continued and disposed of as if these Rules have not been made. According to the gazette notification if any difficulty arises in giving effect to any of the provisions of these Rules, the chief justice of Pakistan on the recommendations of a committee, to be constituted by him, may make such order, not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules, as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of removing such difficulty. Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi to enhance transparency, efficiency and overall effectiveness in judicial proceedings had constituted a committee, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, to draft the new rules. The committee sought proposals from judges, the SC office, as well as, bar councils and associations. It has been clarified that any proceedings already pending under the revoked rules – whether by way of application, petition, appeal, reference or review – shall continue and be disposed of as if the new rules had not been made. 'If any difficulty arises in giving effect to any of the provisions of these Rules, the chief justice of Pakistan, on the recommendations of a committee to be constituted by him, may make such order, not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules, as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of removing such difficulty.' Under the new rules, the time limit for filing criminal appeals, criminal petitions for leave to appeal and direct civil appeals has been extended from 30 days to 60 days. Appeals against registrar office objections must be filed within 14 days, while the review petitions against SC judgments must be filed within 30 days. 'Application for review shall be filed in the Registry within thirty days after the pronouncement of the judgement or order, as the case may be, which is sought to be reviewed,' the draft states. Applicants are required to notify the opposing party immediately after filing the review application and send a copy of the notice to the Registry. Every review application must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order being challenged. If it is based on newly discovered evidence, certified copies of relevant documents must be attached along with an affidavit explaining the circumstances of the discovery. The advocate or party signing the application must briefly specify the points on which the review is sought and provide a certificate confirming that a review is justifiable in accordance with the law and practice of the court. The certificate must be in the form of a reasoned opinion. The new rules state that costs for proceedings will be at the court's discretion, but not less than Rs25,000. Interveners will not be entitled to costs unless otherwise ordered. If the hearing of a case is delayed due to an advocate-on-record's neglect, such as failing to attend or provide necessary documents, the court may direct that advocate to personally bear the costs. Where adjournments are sought without sufficient cause, compensatory costs may be imposed on the advocate or party. The same applies to those filing false or vexatious proceedings that waste the court's time. No court fee will be charged for jail petitions. Regarding constitutional matters, the rules provide that any petition, appeal, or review involving the original jurisdiction of the court under Article 184, the appellate jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 185 (where a High Court judgment involves the constitutionality of a law or a substantial constitutional question), or the advisory jurisdiction under Article 186 shall be heard by a constitutional bench constituted under Article 191A of the Constitution. Such a bench will consist of no fewer than five judges, nominated by the committee. If the judges hearing a matter are equally divided in opinion, the committee may refer it either to another judge or to a larger bench. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
