ZAKA UD DIN MALIK vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN S — 2023 PTD 268 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ZAKA UD DIN MALIK VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN S.8 (2)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched., Entry 50---Expression 'assets'---Scope---Expression 'assets' is required to be read and construed in the context of / company of tax on the capital value of assets, which cannot be bracketed with expression 'immovable property', latter being employed in the context of separate class / category of levy---No association / commonness is found in expressions 'assets' and 'immovable property' nor could possibly be inferred in the context of a separate kind / categories / classes of taxation envisaged in Entry 50 of Fourth Schedule to the Constitution---Capital value is based on the principle of aggregation---Capital value of assets is base / object of first part of Entry 50 of Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, and later part thereof provides for taxation on immovable property, which class / category of impost is excluded from domain of Parliament, and power to tax immovable property is extended to Provincial legislature(s). S.8 (2)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Schedule, Entry 50---Redundancy or superfluousness---Applicability---No redundancy or superfluousness can be attributed to second part of Entry 50 of Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, which protects legislative authority of Provinces to tax immovable property---No room exists for conjectural debate, speculation qua applicability of linguistic canons of construction, which otherwise defined scope and extent of tax on capital value of assets and tax on immovable property, latter possessing distinguishing characteristics / features and otherwise coming within the legislative domain of Provincial Legislature(s). Expressio unius est exclusion alterius--- Meaning--- Expression of one thing is exclusion of the other. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius---Meaning---Expression of one thing is exclusion of the other. S.8(2)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.1(3), 142(a), 199 & Fourth Sched., Entry No.50---Constitutional petition---Capital Value Tax---Foreign assets of tax resident---Vires---Pith and substance, rule of---Applicability---Amnesty Scheme, immunity from taxation---Extra territorial operations---Scope---Petitioners assailed charging of Capital Value Tax from tax residents holding foreign assets---Plea raised by petitioners was that they had declared foreign assets by availing Amnesty Schemes introduced by Federal Government and such assets were immune from any taxation---Validity---Tax was levied on value of assets, which assets were identified as foreign assets of a resident person---Applying rule of pith and substance manifestly tax levied was 'in relation to the capital value of the assets' and the same could not be equated with levy on corpus of immovable property--- Determination of capital value of assets could include immovable property, which alleged factor was not to alter essential nature and character of tax in question---At the time of availing Amnesty Scheme, law legislated by Parliament was acknowledged and availed, which sought declaration of foreign assets---No objection was raised that Amnesty Schemes had extra territorial operations---Constitutionality of Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was consistently upheld by Constitutional Courts, which law had taxed the assets, either inside or outside Pakistan---No case for arbitrariness and unintelligible classification had arisen within the class of persons subjected to tax, which constituted a reasonably and intelligibly defined classification---Without any endeavor to suggest a nomenclature for levy under reference, it could appropriately be classified as tax on capital value of foreign assets of resident individual---Apparent and obvious purpose / objective of the levy was to discourage concentration of wealth--- Provision of S.8(2)(b) of Finance Act, 2022 was valid, Constitutional and intra vires---High Court declined to interfere in the matter as there was no fault in exercise of legislative powers by Parliament under Entry 50 of Federal Legislative List in Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, which matter was within the competence of Parliament in terms of Art.142(a) of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Case law referred. art.141---Federal and Provincial laws---Extent---Extent of domain of Federal and Provincial laws is envisaged under art.141 of the Constitution and has authorized the Parliament to make laws, including laws having extra territorial operations. S.8(2)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched., Entry 50---Noscitur a socii, rule of---Applicability---Rule of Noscitur a socii entails recognition of statutory terms in the context of associated words or in the light of its surroundings / company---No connection / proximity / link is found inter se tax on the capital value of foreign assets and tax on immovable property - both are distinct and separate imposts--- For applicability of rule of Noscitur a socii no associated words in Entry 50 of Fourth Schedule to the Constitution are found for the purposes of assimilation / merger of otherwise distinct category of taxes. Ejusdem Generis, rule of---Scope---Rule of Ejusdem Generis implies that general words, preceding particular / specific words, must confirm to string of genus / class / category of preceding words---In absence of any nexus between enumeration and general words or inferable distinction between enumerated genus and following words, the rule has had no application. S.8(2)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched., Entry 50---Expression 'taxes'---Scope---Expressions 'tax(es)' in the first and second part of Entry 50 cannot be construed as specific class / genus to otherwise artificially widen the scope or effect of immovable property by limiting scope of class of tax in first part of Entry 50 of Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, which provides description of a complete genus-tax on capital value of assets---Exclusion followed thereto indicates another separate category / genus---Rule of ejusdem generis or Noscitur a socii cannot be attracted.

ZAKA UD DIN MALIK vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN S — 2023 PTD 268 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PTD