Mian MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2025 PTD 860 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.

Mian MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss. 126a, 127 & 130 [as amended vide Tax Laws (amendment) act, 2024]---Constitution of Pakistan, arts. 4, 10-a & 37(d)---appellate procedure---Modifications brought in through the Tax Laws (amendment) act, 2024---Doctrine of textualism---One forum of appeal taken away---Said amendments / modifications were assailed before the High Court---Held, that Federal Board of Revenue (the "FBR"), as a regulatory body, dealing with all the tax related affairs, is vested with the main goal of tax collection in the country---But now the impugned amendment had placed an extraordinary burden on the High Court---Orders passed by the Commissioners (appeals) are often sketchy, lacking reasoning and suffer from serious (various) deficiencies, which ultimately results in litigation before the High Court---Due to the deficiencies, the High Court is frequently compelled to remand cases back to the Commissioners (appeals) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law---This situation is consuming the valuable time of the High Court, leading to an increase in the backlog of Tax References, thereby adversely affecting the hearing and disposal of other cases---Moreover, the FBR faces no financial barrier in filing Tax References, as it is exempt from paying court fees, whereas an ordinary litigant is required to pay Rs. 50,000 per reference, which results in a clear discrimination against the citizens of Pakistan, depriving them of equal access to justice, which infringes the fundamental rights of public guaranteed under arts. 4, 10-a & 37(d) of the Constitution---appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, being established under a specific law and/or an adjudicating forum, is created with the mandate to decide the appeal/matter within a specific timeframe---article 37(d) of the Constitution states in equivocal terms that it is the utmost duty of the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice, while the impugned amendment was taking away jurisdiction of one appellate forum hitting the mandate of the art.37(d) of the Constitution---Thus, the impugned amendment was clogging the arteries of judicial system, obstructing the dispensation of justice and causing undue delays in other cases---Doctrine of Textualism envisages a method of statutory interpretation that a statute should be interpreted according to its plain meaning and not according to the intent of the legislature, the statutory purpose or the legislative history---Thus, Director General, FBR, was directed to appear before the High Court with a detailed reply explaining the background, rationale, policy, objectives and reasons for introducing such amendment, who shall also clarify how this amendment was causing delay in the administration of justice by the High Court, affecting the rights of the public---Petition was adjourned listed.

Mian MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2025 PTD 860 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD