On Monday, the Lahc Supreme Court (LHC) was informed that tax cases worth 2 trillion rupee were linked to litigation in the ATIR’s internal appeal court revenues for several years. In response to the contact law that challenges the Law of Tax Laws (amendment), the Ministry of Law attributed the accumulation to the lack of seats, the delay in scheduling cases, and the formation of irregular seats.
Judge Jawad Hassan Al -Obeth, who opposes amendments to the appeal under the Income Tax Law (ITO). During the procedures, the judge noted that the changes have effectively removed a level of appeal, which raised concerns about reaching justice. On March 25, the representative of the Federal Revenue Council (FBR) was summoned, the court sought to clarify the amendments.
Judge Hassan highlighted that a large number of tax cases in front of LHC are arising from procedural lapses within FBR, including insufficient legal references, improper sessions, and decisions issued by random. Often these court defects prompted the return of cases for the new ruling, which increases the accumulation of suspended tax auditor.
He pointed out that FBR did not face any financial restrictions in submitting the appeal, as it was exempted from the court fees, while the ordinary litigants are required to pay 50,000 rupees for each reference. He said that this created a difference in reaching justice, and may violate constitutional rights under Articles 4, 10-A and 37 (D).
He added that the modifications have put an additional burden on LHC, which currently contains only one seat for the tax references in Bahawalpur, one in Multan, two in Rawalpindi, and three in its main seat in Lahore. Judge Hassan also criticized the quality of the decisions issued by Commissioners (Appeals), saying that they often lacking thinking, and they were badly organized, and contributed to excessive litigation.
Defending the amendment, government representatives argued that the revised rulings were designed to reduce unnecessary appeal and resolve tax disputes. However, the court emphasized that the reforms should not come at the expense of due legal procedures and judicial fairness.
