AGL40▲ 0 (0.00%)AIRLINK129.06▼ -0.47 (0.00%)BOP6.75▲ 0.07 (0.01%)CNERGY4.49▼ -0.14 (-0.03%)DCL8.55▼ -0.39 (-0.04%)DFML40.82▼ -0.87 (-0.02%)DGKC80.96▼ -2.81 (-0.03%)FCCL32.77▲ 0 (0.00%)FFBL74.43▼ -1.04 (-0.01%)FFL11.74▲ 0.27 (0.02%)HUBC109.58▼ -0.97 (-0.01%)HUMNL13.75▼ -0.81 (-0.06%)KEL5.31▼ -0.08 (-0.01%)KOSM7.72▼ -0.68 (-0.08%)MLCF38.6▼ -1.19 (-0.03%)NBP63.51▲ 3.22 (0.05%)OGDC194.69▼ -4.97 (-0.02%)PAEL25.71▼ -0.94 (-0.04%)PIBTL7.39▼ -0.27 (-0.04%)PPL155.45▼ -2.47 (-0.02%)PRL25.79▼ -0.94 (-0.04%)PTC17.5▼ -0.96 (-0.05%)SEARL78.65▼ -3.79 (-0.05%)TELE7.86▼ -0.45 (-0.05%)TOMCL33.73▼ -0.78 (-0.02%)TPLP8.4▼ -0.66 (-0.07%)TREET16.27▼ -1.2 (-0.07%)TRG58.22▼ -3.1 (-0.05%)UNITY27.49▲ 0.06 (0.00%)WTL1.39▲ 0.01 (0.01%)

Professional tax by cantonment board unconstitutional: SC

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

The Supreme Court declared on Friday professional tax levied by Cantonment Board Karachi unconstitutional, disposing off the board’s plea challenging the Sindh High Court’s order.

A three-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa was hearing the Cantonment Board’s plea.
During the hearing, the CJP observed that taxes levied by the Cantonment Board are both unconstitutional and in contradiction with transparency.

The land given to the cantonment board was given to the military for a specific purpose, why are shopping malls being built there, asked the CJP, observing that it was not meant for commercial purposes.

Institutions are being brought to their constitutional purpose, he remarked, disposing off the plea challenging the receipt of taxes from restaurants, banks and poultry farms by the board.

At the previous hearing, the CJP had noted that only the federal and provincial governments could impose taxes.
He had questioned how a cantonment board could impose tax on professionals.

The additional attorney general of Pakistan had replied that the local government was also an elected body and authorized to impose taxes.

At which the CJP had inquired whether if a tax was imposed on lawyers would it be collected by a local body.
Meanwhile, Justice Athar Minallah had pointed out that the objection was that the local government could not impose tax under Article 163 of the Constitution.

The CJP had remarked that the court could not ignore the Constitution, and asked how the authority to collect taxes could be given to someone else.

Related Posts

Get Alerts