ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court was re -formed on Monday for hearing on a set of challenges to impose super taxes on high -earning persons through Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
Justice Aminuddin Khan, who was headed by the bench, noted that a member of the bench, Justice Aamir Farooq, had already taken a verdict on the matter when he was the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court.
The new bench will include Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hassan Azar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Aminuddin.
While the lawyer representing various industrial enterprises requested to hear the matter after Eid, the court rejected the request and announced that the matter would be heard daily from Tuesday.
Hamid Khan says constitutional amendments are needed to try citizens in military courts
A large number of taxpayers challenged the constitutional virus of Section 4C in the tax year 2023.
Last year, an IHC division bench comprising Justice Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri heard intra -court appeals.
The Super Tax was introduced by the PML -N government in 2015 and was applied to wealthy people, individuals’ associations, and more than Rs 500 million. This imposes a 4PC tax rate on banking companies’ income and other sectors of 3PC, which aims to temporarily financing the restoration of homeless people.
Military trial case
Separate, senior lawyer Hameed Khan – who represents the Lahore Bar Association – argued before the constitutional bench that military courts could not be established without a constitutional amendment.
Even the constitutional amendment for military courts should be bound for time and includes the right to appeal against their decisions.
However, he highlighted that the current situation did not justify the trial of civilians in such a large number of military courts.
Mr Khan said that Article 175 (3) of the Constitution demanded the executive to separate the judiciary. He argued that being part of the army, as part of the executive, could not exercise judicial powers. He was of the opinion that the purpose of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) was “fully for military personnel and not for civilians.” Therefore, he added, any clause that enhances his jurisdiction to the citizens was unconstitutional.
He argued that the FB Ali case has been misinterpreted to justify the trial of civilians in the military courts.
The lawyer argued that despite the recommendation to do so in two years, the Parliament has not reviewed the case of military courts since the FB Ali case. He emphasized that the military courts, if allowed to try ordinary citizens, would create a parallel judicial system, which would disrupt the constitutional framework.
During the hearing, Justice Mandokil asked if Article 175 (3) requires the separation of the judiciary from the executive. In response, the lawyer said that there was no need for a parliamentary declaration because the words of the constitution were clear.
On the other hand, Justice Mazhar remarked how the SC ruled in some previous cases through the majority decisions that military courts do not fall under Article 175 (3).
Since Mr Khan has completed his arguments, Defense Ministry’s lawyer Khwaja Harsh Ahmed will start his denial and present a contradictory point of view.
Dawn, appeared on March 11, 2025
