ISLAMABAD: After Islamabad and Lahore High Courts, the Sindh High Court (SHC) has also suspended the SRO 1588(I)/2023 of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) which has imposed 40 percent additional tax on windfall income of banks.
According to the latest order of the SHC, the operation of the SRO 1588(I)/2023 will remain suspended till the next date of hearing. The petitioner at the SHC submitted that the controversy has been raised regarding vires of section 99D of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 as well as SRO 1588(I)/2023 which is already pending before this court in a number of petitions, SHC order added.
The next date of hearing at the Lahore High Court has been re-fixed for January 15, 2024. The LHC had stayed tax imposed under section 99D read with SRO1588(I)/2023 dated November 21, 2023 at the rate of 40 percent on foreign exchange income of the banks as windfall gains.
Additional tax on windfall income, profits, gains: Banks given Nov 30 deadline to make payment
The next date of hearing has been extended from December 11, 2023 to January 15, 2024 at the LHC.
Earlier, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had suspended the SRO 1588(1)/2023.
The petitioner banks are aggrieved of the impugned SRO 1588(1)/2023, dated 21.11.2023, issued under section 99D of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 by which the banking companies have been subjected to “additional tax” at 40 per cent on their windfall income that is to be computed in accordance with the formula given in the impugned SRO.
Another submission by the learned counsel to be recorded in the context of this application for interim relief is that, in terms of section 99D (3), the notification levying the additional tax on windfall income is to be laid before the National Assembly, which not only assumes that a National Assembly is in existence (for it is to be laid “within” 90 days) but, more to the point, it is quite possible that the National Assembly would not agree and may refuse to bless the notification issued under section 99D.
In this case, the additional tax would no longer be valid and, in case of its earlier recovery, it would be the petitioners who would be out of pocket for the interim period for which the federal government is unlikely to pay any interest and, therefore, the loss of use of the taxpayer’s funds for that period without any compensation does appear to meet the test of irreparable loss.
The IHC stated that section 99D, being a charging section, appears inchoate in that it does not spell out the consequences of the National Assembly disagreeing with the federal government’s computation of the windfall income or its chosen rate of additional tax, and the benefit of the ambiguity over the precarious existence of the progeny of a charging section can only extend to the taxpayer.
Therefore, the SRO cannot but be taken to remain in abeyance until it is blessed by the National Assembly (assuming all other legal grounds operating in the department’s favour thereafter).
The counsel of the petitioner contended inter alia that section 99D is tantamount to excessive delegation of power by the Parliament by leaving it to the federal government to determine any rate of tax between 0 per cent and 40 per cent, which is in breach of Article 77 of the Constitution.
The impugned SRO has been issued by the caretaker government, which per settled law can only attend to day-to-day affairs and cannot extend its authority to a fresh taxation measure.
He goes on to state that the SRO is also defective in that the determination of the preconditions under section 99D, namely, the economic factors that led to the windfall income, as well as, the quantum of the windfall income, are conspicuous by their absence in the impugned SRO, and by a reading of the SRO there is only an underlying but un-validated assumption that external economic factors have actually operated and led to a windfall income but without these being spelt out in the notification, which would be expected given the letter and spirit of section 99D.
He marched on by referring to the formula under the SRO, which takes the arithmetic mean for the past six years as the key referent by which the windfall income is to be calculated, thus extending beyond the three year period to be taken into account for the purposes of additional tax under section 99D.
Another argument is that the charge of additional tax conflicts with entry no 47 in the Legislative List for imposing an additional tax which is not warranted in terms thereof, the IHC’s order added.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.