AGL 38.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.21%)
AIRLINK 203.02 Decreased By ▼ -4.75 (-2.29%)
BOP 10.17 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.09%)
CNERGY 6.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.54 (-7.63%)
DCL 9.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-4.1%)
DFML 40.02 Decreased By ▼ -1.12 (-2.72%)
DGKC 98.08 Decreased By ▼ -5.38 (-5.2%)
FCCL 34.96 Decreased By ▼ -1.39 (-3.82%)
FFBL 86.43 Decreased By ▼ -5.16 (-5.63%)
FFL 13.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.70 (-4.79%)
HUBC 131.57 Decreased By ▼ -7.86 (-5.64%)
HUMNL 14.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.57%)
KEL 5.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-6.03%)
KOSM 7.27 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-7.51%)
MLCF 45.59 Decreased By ▼ -1.69 (-3.57%)
NBP 66.38 Decreased By ▼ -7.38 (-10.01%)
OGDC 220.76 Decreased By ▼ -1.90 (-0.85%)
PAEL 38.48 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (0.97%)
PIBTL 8.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-3.88%)
PPL 197.88 Decreased By ▼ -7.97 (-3.87%)
PRL 39.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.82 (-2.06%)
PTC 25.47 Decreased By ▼ -1.15 (-4.32%)
SEARL 103.05 Decreased By ▼ -7.19 (-6.52%)
TELE 9.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-2.28%)
TOMCL 36.41 Decreased By ▼ -1.80 (-4.71%)
TPLP 13.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.15%)
TREET 25.12 Decreased By ▼ -1.33 (-5.03%)
TRG 58.04 Decreased By ▼ -2.50 (-4.13%)
UNITY 33.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-1.38%)
WTL 1.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-9.04%)
BR100 11,890 Decreased By -408.8 (-3.32%)
BR30 37,357 Decreased By -1520.9 (-3.91%)
KSE100 111,070 Decreased By -3790.4 (-3.3%)
KSE30 34,909 Decreased By -1287 (-3.56%)

ISLAMABAD: The top court declared the collection of professional tax by Cantonment Board Karachi from businesses including restaurants, banks, and poultry farms illegal.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, on Friday, heard an appeal of the Cantonment Board, Karachi, against the judgment of the Sindh High Court (SHC).

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

SBP properties: SC bars Manora, Hyderabad Cantt boards from taking coercive steps

In the last hearing, the chief justice had questioned how a cantonment board could impose a tax on professionals.

The additional attorney general of Pakistan had replied that the local government was also an elected body and authorised to impose taxes. The chief justice questioned if a tax was imposed on lawyers, would it be collected by a local body?

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. He remarked that only the federal and provincial governments could impose taxes.

Justice Athar Minallah had pointed out that the objection was that a local government could not impose tax under Article 163 of the Constitution.

The bench upheld the decision of the SHC, which had nullified the collection of professional tax by the Karachi Cantonment Board. The court ordered the Karachi Cantonment Board to refund the collected professional tax to the taxpayers.

Chief Justice Isa said that the imposition of the tax by the Cantonment board was a violation of democracy and transparency. He questioned the rationale of allowing commercial activities in the Cantonment areas, which were given to the army for a specific purpose. He said that the Cantonment board’s decisions were made by one person without any consultation or accountability.

He said that government agencies were returning to their original limits and it was expected that other agencies would follow suit.

The professional tax is a provincial levy that is imposed on professionals, traders and businesses according to their income brackets. However, some Cantonment boards across Pakistan have also been collecting this tax from the areas under their jurisdiction, claiming that they are not bound by the provincial laws.

This has led to disputes and litigation between the Cantonment boards and the provincial excise and taxation departments, as well as, between the Cantonment boards and the taxpayers.

Some traders and vendors have complained that they are being asked to pay the same tax twice by both the provincial and Cantonment authorities. They have also argued that they are not professionals and should not be liable for this tax.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Comments

Comments are closed.