ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) dismissed petitions seeking a review of its judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the super tax imposed under Sections 4B and 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan and comprising Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, announced its reserved judgment on Wednesday.
Twenty-two pages’ judgment, authored by Justice Amin, stated; “No ground for review is made out. Consequently, the review petitions are dismissed, and the judgment under review, along with all directions contained therein, shall remain undisturbed and operative in accordance with law.”
“Upon consideration of the grounds urged, we find no error apparent on the face of the record, material omission or jurisdictional infirmity warranting review. The petitioners merely seek reconsideration of issues already conclusively adjudicated through a reasoned judgment. Such reappraisal falls beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction and would undermine the finality of judicial determinations.”
Justice Amin wrote that the judgment under review manifests a comprehensive adjudication of the constitutional vires and statutory applicability of sections 4B and 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, upon a meticulous examination of the governing constitutional provisions, legislative scheme and competing submissions.
The judgment said that the questions concerning Parliament’s legislative competence, the juridical character and incidence of the impugned levies, their retrospective operation, constitutional equality and the differential treatment of taxable income were duly considered and conclusively determined through a harmonious construction of the charging provisions and relevant Schedules to the Ordinance. No material question, jurisdictional infirmity or determinative aspect of the controversy has been demonstrated to have eluded judicial consideration to warrant interference in review jurisdiction.
Qua legislative competence, this Court categorically determined that the super tax levied under sections 4B and 4C of the Ordinance falls squarely within the constitutional ambit of a tax on income contemplated by Entry 47 of Part I of the Federal Legislative List, Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, thereby attracting Parliament’s legislative competence and the procedure prescribed for Money Bills under Article 73 thereof. The supplementary character of the levy, notwithstanding the prior subjection of the same income to taxation, does not ipso facto vitiate its constitutional validity or legislative efficacy.
The challenge to the retrospective operation of section 4C of the Ordinance was likewise subjected to express judicial scrutiny. This Court, upon examining the legislative intent governing its applicability from Tax Year 2022 and the revised rates prescribed for Tax Year 2023, delineated the permissible constitutional contours of retrospective fiscal legislation, while maintaining the juridical distinction between the accrual of a statutory tax liability and its subsequent assessment or recovery. The petitioners have established no bald-faced illegality or error ostensible on the face of the record in the resultant determination. Their contentions, in substance, merely seek to re-agitate an issue already adjudicated, which is impermissible within the restricted province of review jurisdiction.
The objection predicated upon Article 25 of the Constitution is equally untenable. This Court, having subjected the income-based classifications and differential fiscal treatment prescribed under the relevant Schedules to constitutional scrutiny, determined that the impugned distinctions bear a rational nexus with the legislative object. The constitutional guarantee of equality does not interdict reasonable fiscal classification but proscribes arbitrary or invidious discrimination amongst similarly situated persons. Within constitutional constraints, the legislature enjoys latitude in delineating taxable classes, prescribing thresholds and calibrating rates of taxation. The impugned provisions having been adjudged constitutionally permissible on these parameters, no material constitutional consideration overlooked by this Court, patent infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated to warrant reopening the determination in review jurisdiction.
Likewise, the questions relating to computation of income, inclusion of capital gains and applicability of section 4C to income governed by separate or final taxation regimes were conclusively adjudicated through a harmonious construction of the relevant statutory provisions. This Court recognised section 4C as an independent charging provision, maintaining the juridical distinction between the incidence of taxation and its computational and recovery machinery. A distinct mode of taxation does not, ipso facto, confer immunity from an independent statutory levy absent an express exemption or necessary statutory exclusion. The petitioners have failed to establish any statutory bar, material inconsistency or error apparent warranting review.
The judgment duly considered the statutory protections applicable to petroleum exploration and production companies under the Fifth Schedule and relevant Petroleum Concession Agreements, as well as exemptions available to qualifying benevolent, provident, pension, gratuity and similar funds under section 53 read with the Second Schedule to the Ordinance. Thus, the applicable statutory exceptions were neither overlooked nor disregarded. Any question of individual assessment or implementation must be resolved in accordance with the governing law and does not constitute a ground for review.
“We find no merit in the contention that this Court was bound by the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Following the Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, this Court exercises independent constitutional jurisdiction, and judgments of the Supreme Court, though possessing persuasive value, are not binding upon it. Mere divergence of judicial opinion, therefore, constitutes no ground for review. The contention is accordingly repelled,” said the judgment.
The judgment under review conclusively determined substantial constitutional and fiscal questions involving different tax years and categories of taxpayers. Neither the financial implications nor the number of affected persons enlarges the limited scope of review jurisdiction. In the absence of any legally recognized ground, matters already adjudicated cannot be reopened merely through reiteration of arguments or apprehension of financial consequences.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments