Latest news with #AminudDinKhan
Business Recorder
15-05-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Entry-151 of Sixth Schedule to STA: SC CB grants status quo, restores amendment
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court granting status quo, restored and maintained the amendment made by Parliament in Entry No 151 of the Sixth Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990. A five-judge Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminud Din Khan on Wednesday heard the case related to exemption of tax to the residents of FATA/ PATA in form of Entry No 151 of the 6th Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2024. The bench accepting the preliminary arguments issued notices to the respondents, and directed the SC Office to club all the related cases, and granted status quo. As a result, the amendment introduced by Parliament in Entry No 151 of the Sixth Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990 remains valid and operative. Govt will not propose extension in tax exemptions for ex-FATA, PATA: Aurangzeb Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar, representing the Pakistan Ghee Mills Association and Pakistan Steel Mills Association, contended that Parliament had full constitutional competence to legislate and amend the Sales Tax Act, 1990, including the insertion of Entry No 151 through the Finance Act, 2024. The said provision regulated the customs clearance process for consignments, mandating submission of a pay order with the customs department. He submitted that a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) judgment dated 31-10-24 not only struck down the legislative amendment but, in a controversial move substituted the term 'pay order' with 'post-dated cheque.' Hafiz Ahsaan argued that this amounted to judicial legislation and was in clear violation of the constitutional separation of powers. 'The High Court assumed the role of Parliament, which is impermissible under the Constitution,' he asserted. He contended that the High Court had exercised suo motu jurisdiction in violation of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which expressly restricts such powers. He also emphasised that courts are not empowered to make policy decisions or legislate for convenience, warning that the impugned judgment reflected clear judicial overreach. Highlighting the legislative intent behind the amendment, Hafiz Ahsaan maintained that Entry No 151 was inserted to protect state revenue and ensure a streamlined taxation process, which had been entirely overlooked by the High Court. He requested the Court to set aside the impugned judgment on grounds of erroneous legal presumption and constitutional transgression, and to grant interim relief by suspending the High Court's decision. After hearing the preliminary arguments, the bench issued notices, and ordered that all connected matters to be consolidated, and granted status quo. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Super tax case hearing today
The Supreme Court will hear the case related to the imposition of super tax on Tuesday (today). The hearing will be conducted by a five-member constitutional bench headed by Senior Judge Justice Aminud Din Khan. Other members of the bench include Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan. During the previous hearing, in response to an inquiry by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, FBR's counsel Raza Rabbani informed the court that the federal governments share from the super tax would be allocated under the NFC Award.
Express Tribune
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SC adjourns appeals on civilian army trials
The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned hearing of intra court appeals against civilians' trial by army courts tomorrow. 25. A seven-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminud Din Khan and comprising justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan heard the petitions. Justice Aminud Din observed that a category of civilians also fell under the Army Act and questioned, how a distinction could be made that who came under the preview of Army Act and who did not? He further observed that the reference to Article 245 was irrelevant in instant case. APP
