AVN 65.52 Decreased By ▼ -1.18 (-1.77%)
BAFL 29.72 Increased By ▲ 0.22 (0.75%)
BOP 4.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.74%)
CNERGY 3.57 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-1.38%)
DFML 11.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-2.03%)
DGKC 42.03 Decreased By ▼ -1.17 (-2.71%)
EPCL 45.66 Decreased By ▼ -0.33 (-0.72%)
FCCL 11.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-2.11%)
FFL 5.78 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.7%)
FLYNG 5.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-2.14%)
GGL 10.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.37 (-3.29%)
HUBC 67.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.48 (-0.71%)
HUMNL 5.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.89%)
KAPCO 24.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-1.89%)
KEL 2.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.94%)
LOTCHEM 24.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.32%)
MLCF 24.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-1.17%)
NETSOL 74.12 Decreased By ▼ -2.08 (-2.73%)
OGDC 84.67 Decreased By ▼ -1.19 (-1.39%)
PAEL 10.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.44 (-3.98%)
PIBTL 3.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-1.76%)
PPL 64.81 Decreased By ▼ -1.19 (-1.8%)
PRL 12.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-1.62%)
SILK 0.87 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-1.14%)
SNGP 39.41 Decreased By ▼ -1.34 (-3.29%)
TELE 7.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.42 (-5.61%)
TPLP 14.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-2.58%)
TRG 107.60 Decreased By ▼ -2.85 (-2.58%)
UNITY 13.37 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.04%)
WTL 1.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.83%)
BR100 4,040 Decreased By -40.6 (-0.99%)
BR30 14,413 Decreased By -217.8 (-1.49%)
KSE100 39,942 Decreased By -434.1 (-1.08%)
KSE30 14,739 Decreased By -177.2 (-1.19%)
Follow us

ISLAMABAD: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has been prayed to strike down clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Finance Act, 2022, dated 30-06-2022 being ultra vires of articles 1, 7, 23, 24, 25, 70 and 142 of the Constitution.

Zakauddin Malik through advocate Chaudhary Anwarul Haq Arif has filed the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution before the LHC, and cited the federation, government of the Punjab, and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) as respondents. The high court has issued notice to the respondents and the Attorney General for Pakistan for September 15.

He has further prayed to declare that the act of Parliament to include the word “movable” in the definition of “foreign assets” under definition clause (c) of sub-section (13) of the Section 8 of the Finance Act, 2022, to levy taxes on “movable properties” is ultra vires to the Constitution. Accordingly, the word ‘immovable” may be struck down from the definition clause.

Chaudhary Anwar submitted that under Article 142(a)(d) read with Article 1(2) of the Constitution and entry 50 of the Federal Legislative List, it is not in the competence of the Parliament to frame law to tax capital value of “assets” in a “state” outside the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan.

Capital assets in Pakistan: Tax on ‘deemed income’ challenged in LHC

He stated that under entry 50 of the Federal Legislative List read with Article 70 of the constitution, the Parliament may only frame the law in respect of taxes on capital value of the “assets” other than “movable property” held by the resident individual within Pakistan. Therefore, the insertion of section 8 in the Finance Act 2022 to levy Capital Value Tax on “foreign assets” of resident individuals is ultra vires to the Constitution.

He pointed out that under section 82 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for the purpose of levy of income tax, a citizen of Pakistan having dual nationality and/or a foreign national, who will be present in Pakistan for a period of, or period amounting in aggregate to 183 days or more in a tax year are considered as resident individual. However, in consequence of the impugned section 8 of the Act, said both categories of persons have also been subjected to CVT on their assets outside Pakistan. Such legislation is not permissible under the constitution.

The petitioner stated that under the article 142 of the constitution, the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws in respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List, whereas, the Provincial Assembly is empowered to make laws in respect of any matter not enumerated in the Federal Legislative List.

Through 18th Amendment Entry No 50 specifically excludes the tax on immovable property from the competence of federal legislators. It means provincial assembly is vested with exclusive power to levy taxes on immovable property as per the judgment in the case of luxury tax on houses titled Muhammad Khalid Qureshi vs Province of Punjab.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022


Comments are closed.

Ali Sep 04, 2022 07:13am
What does the court have to do with this.
thumb_up Recommended (0)

Finance Act: LHC urged to strike down ‘tax on foreign assets’ clause

Free flour: Punjab govt to provide 20kg bags from 29th

Officials asked to ensure provision of free flour

Support price of wheat in Balochistan now equal to those in other provinces

ECC told: G-B working on targeted wheat subsidy plan

Free flour: PML-N seeks to regain a foothold in Punjab

PSA seeks annual limit of $800m for solar imports

Militancy crisis: WB to mull over $50m project for Fata, KP families’ succor

Marriyum heaps criticism on IK

Punjab-KP polls,general election: IK accuses govt of deep-rooted ambivalence

FBR to encourage taxpayers to adapt to ADRCs forum