PHC suspends ACB's tax powers
A constitutional writ petition was filed in the PHC's Abbottabad Bench on January 24, 2024, on behalf of a group of property owners. Lawyer Hashim Iqbal Jadoon filed the petition before on behalf of a group of property owners.
The petition challenged the Abbottabad Cantonment Board (ACB)'s authority to levy and collect property tax, arguing that such taxation powers were unconstitutional and beyond the legislative competence of the Board.
The legal foundation of the challenge rested on the interpretation of Entry No 50 of the Federal Legislative List (FLL), which reserves taxation on immovable property to provincial legislatures.
The petitioners contended that the ACB, being a federal entity, had no constitutional mandate to levy such taxes, especially after the 18th Constitutional Amendment which devolved key taxation powers to the provinces.
However, the situation took a turn when the 26th Constitutional Amendment was passed in October 2024. This amendment added the phrase "local taxes, fees, cess, charges, tolls in such areas" to Entry No 2 of the FLL, leading to confusion and widespread concern that cantonment boards now had the constitutional authority to impose property tax.
In response, Advocate Hashim Iqbal Jadoon once again led the legal charge, filing a fresh constitutional petition (WP No 1266-A/2024) on behalf of the residents of Abbottabad Cantonment. He argued that despite the new wording, the 26th Amendment didn't override Entry No 50 and that only provincial governments could constitutionally impose property taxes. The petition challenged the vires and interpretation of the 26th Amendment and its impact on legislative competence.
In a landmark development, the PHC once again granted interim relief to the petitioners on July 2. This stay order reaffirmed the constitutional argument that federal bodies like cantonments couldn't usurp taxation powers reserved for the provinces under the constitutional framework.
This case is likely to shape the future of tax jurisdiction in Pakistan and may have nationwide implications for thousands of residents living in cantonment areas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
PHC upholds dismissal of caretaker-era employees
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Friday dismissed petitions challenging the termination of employees appointed during the caretaker government, upholding the provincial government's decision as lawful. A two-member bench comprising Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar and Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel heard the case. The petitioners were represented by their respective counsels, while Additional Advocate General Taimur Haider appeared on behalf of the provincial government. The petitioners' lawyers argued that their clients were legally appointed during the caretaker setup and had been performing their duties diligently. However, after the general elections, the newly elected government dismissed all employees hired during the caretaker period without issuing any show-cause notices or giving them a chance to be heard, which they claimed was a violation of legal norms and procedural fairness. They requested the court to declare the terminations null and void. In response, Additional Advocate General Taimur Haider informed the court that the legality of the Act under which the employees were dismissed had already been debated extensively in the provincial assembly. He emphasized that the dismissals were carried out through a proper legislative process and under a valid law. He further argued that the caretaker government's primary mandate was to ensure the conduct of free and fair electionsnot to make appointments or carry out policy decisions.
Express Tribune
9 hours ago
- Express Tribune
LHC's May 9 ruling
Listen to article It seems political instability and an unpleasant crisscross with the judiciary is there to stay. The detailed order of a division bench of the LHC that found former PM Imran Khan involved in a 'conspiracy' linked to the May 9 upheavals has come too late, thus putting a question mark on its veracity. The court ironically has summarised its entire contention, reliance and judgment merely on the testimony of two police officials presented by the state prosecution. This is simply a travesty of justice and is in need of a holistic approach to dispense fair play in all judiciousness. It is irksome to note that both the sleuths were present on two different occasions in various parts of Punjab with the accused, and were the only ones to hear him instigate his workers to vandalise state properties in case of his arrest. Thus, the charges of criminal conspiracy and abetment slapped on the incarcerated leader have come to not only delay his lawful bail application, but also to prolong an episode of controversy and discontent that has wrecked socio-political harmony for long. The May 9 buzzword has come a long way. Hundreds of arrested men and women have gone through trials and tribulations. And when the tale was nearing its legal and logical end, as judgments and lawful interpretations of proceedings are in order, this new trial after two years hints at nothing but vendetta. It is a foregone conclusion that the judiciary is under pressure, especially after the 26th amendment, and dispensing an impartial trial to the imprisoned opposition party members is a remote possibility. It is, thus, incumbent upon the judiciary to see that justice is seen to be done, and the cases should not be heard and decided in limbo without seeking relevant pieces of witnesses as ordained by law. Learned Justice Athar Minallah had a point, when he told an audience at the Supreme Court, that the society is polarising owing to the phenomenon that the state is trying to construe self-concocted decisions. Time to step back from this disgusting tendency.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Justice Mansoor seeks JCP meeting details
Listen to article Supreme Court Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has urged the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to share the minutes of all its meetings during tenure of Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi. In a letter written on June 25 to the JCP secretary, Justice Shah raised concern for not sharing the minutes of the JCP meetings to the public. "I raise an issue of institutional concern: the commission's discontinuation of the practice of releasing the minutes of its meetings to the public," says the letter. Justice Shah believes that the judiciary, as a trend-setter for other state institutions, must hold itself to the highest standards of openness and public accountability. "The appointment of judges is a public act with far-reaching consequences. The people of Pakistan have a right to know how the judges of the top court in the country are selected, what deliberations take place, and whether constitutional standards are applied in good faith. "The opacity that now surrounds the Commission's workings is not healthy, not democratic, and not consistent with the Supreme Court's image as the guardian of constitutional values," says the letter. He; therefore, urges the commission that the minutes of all JCP meetings held during the tenure of the current chairperson (CJP Afridi) be released to the public, in accordance with past practice. Abdul Moiz Jaferii advocate said that the central premise of the newly instituted processes related to the judiciary was that the method and process of judicial appointments be made more transparent. A basic feature of this transparency was the releasing of minutes which let the people see the process of determination. This has now ceased. Without reason, he adds. After the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the executive has dominancy in the process of judges appointment as well as selection of judges for the constitutional benches. There is no explanation as why the senior judges were not nominated for constitutional benches in Supreme Court as well as Sindh High Court. There is no explanation as to why dissenting judges are being sidelined by the commission. Recently, the JCP ignored the appointment of senior most judges for their appointment as chief justices of the high court. A lawyer says that they were just ignored because they were not government's like-minded' judges. Similarly, with valid reason, some senior judges, especially Peshawar High Court Judge Ejaz Anwar, were not nominated for the appointment of SC judge. There is no explanation as how the JCP altered its opinion about a judge whose integrity was under question one year ago. It is also witnessed that majority of the government-backed lawyers are appointed as judges of the high courts during the tenure of CJP Afridi. The lawyers whose integrity and competency are beyond doubt were not nominated for appointments as they were not the government's like-minded' CJP Afridi so far could not evolve a strategy to minimise the influence of executive in the appointment of judges. Around 50 judges are appointed in high courts as well as Supreme Court after passage of 26th constitutional amendment. During the tenure of ex-CJP Qazi Faez Isa, minutes of committee working under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act was being shared on the Supreme Court website. However, this practice has been discontinued during ex CJP Yahya Afridi tenure.
