Dr. Ikramul Haq
“Power to levy taxes is a sine qua non for a State. In fact, it is an attribute of sovereignty of a State…it must be exercised strictly in accordance with Constitution…. Subordinate legislation cannot go beyond scope of ‘taxes on income’ used in Constitution. If we were to construe Entry 52 of the Legislative List keeping in view the above meanings of the expression “in lieu of”, it becomes evident that the Legislature has the option instead of invoking Entry 47 for imposing taxes on income, it can impose the same under Entry 52 on the basis of capacity to earn in lieu of Entry 47, but it cannot adopt both the methods in respect of one particular tax”—Supreme Cour in Messers Elahi Cotton Mills & others v Federation of Pakistan & others [PLD 1997 Supreme Court 582]
The power to tax involves the power to destroy—McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
In its short order of January 27, 2026, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) of Pakistan, in an attempt to validate imposition of super tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, has unsettled the well-established constitutional jurisprudence, extending a free hand to Parliament to keep Entry 47 of Part I of the Federal Legislative List alive indefinitely, merely by invoking different labels and multiple charging sections, rendering the doctrine of exhaustion meaningless.
Para 9(vii) of FCC’s short order seeks to justify super tax as an independent charge while simultaneously asserting that section 4 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 already exhausts the field of “taxes on income.” This single finding collapses under the weight of its own internal contradiction.
In constitutional logic one cannot exhaust a legislative entry and yet continue to derive further taxing power from the very same entry by merely altering nomenclature. You cannot have the cake and eat it too!
The gravest error in FCC’s order lies in its implicit acceptance that the term income as envisaged under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan [“the Constitution”] itself can be varied through sub-legislative sleight of hand (sic). This proposition strikes at the heart of tax jurisprudence.
Income is not whatever Parliament declares it to be for revenue purposes. It is a juridical and economic concept with settled contours: real accrual, real receipt, and real capacity to pay and legitimate legal fiction for income, place, person and time, under the doctrine of nexus but not violating any provision of Constitution.
Courts are meant to act as guardians of constitutional boundaries, not facilitators of fiscal overreach. The short order, particularly its Paras 9(v) and 9(vii), fails this test by conflating form with substance, rate with base, and power with convenience.
Para 9(v) mistakes definitional breadth for constitutional legitimacy. Income may be defined broadly, but not beyond taxing power. Once income from all sources is charged under section 4 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the Constitution does not permit Parliament to circle back and tax it again under a different label, a different section, or a different purpose.
The short order’s reasoning in Paras 9(v) and 9(vii), read together with the declaration that super tax under sections 4B and 4C constitutes independent charges, reveals a deep internal incoherence that threatens to destabilize the constitutional architecture of taxation in Pakistan.
What emerges is not a coherent interpretation of legislative competence, but a jurisprudence that treats constitutional limits as malleable, legislative entries as interchangeable, and the concept of income as infinitely adjustable to suit fiscal convenience.
Under established tax jurisprudence, surtax, super tax, surcharge, (or any other nomenclature) is not a separate tax base; it is adjunct to an existing charge. It presupposes a valid tax and merely enhances the rate. Sections 4B and 4C, however, do not operate as adjuncts to section 4. They create parallel charging mechanisms with distinct thresholds, selective application, and separate legislative intent.
While admitting that section 4 exhausts Entry 47, FCC then strangely justifies further impost (super tax) on recalibrated income again! This reasoning collapses a fundamental distinction: between the form of a tax and the constitutional nature of the tax base.
Reference to earlier validation of surcharge etc. misses the point that it never had a separate tax base but was adjunct to an existing charge. It presupposes a valid tax and merely enhances the rate. Historically, additional duty of income tax has always been ancillary to charging section.
Treating super tax as an “independent charge” without identifying its constitutional source, FCC has permitted definitional drafting to substitute for legislative authority. Most troublingly, it endorses the re-characterisation of income itself—already fully taxed “from whatever source derived”—as a mutable construct that can be re-taxed under new labels in utter disregard to constitutional limits.
Once independent charge of super tax levy is asserted, all ancillary justifications collapse. An independent charge must independently satisfy constitutional requirements relating to legislative competence, fiscal federalism, and the divisible pool under the National Finance Commission (NFC) framework. Sections 4B and 4C do none of these.
The doctrine of exhaustion is not mere rhetoric. It is the logic of enumerated competence: when the Constitution gives parliament a subject-matter, it should legislate within its confines, and not create serial, parallel charging provisions on the same constitutional subject as if competence renews annually with each Finance Act.
The problem with the short order is that it wants both propositions to be true at once: (i) section 4 exhausts Entry 47; and (ii) sections 4B and 4C are nonetheless valid under Entry 47 because “taxes on income” may take many forms.
Sections 4B and 4C are not mere rate add-ons. They are parallel charging mechanisms with their own thresholds, selectivity, and—most importantly—an altered concept of what counts as “income” for the levy.
Definitions in sublegislations do not generate competence; they operate within competence. Legislature cannot just say “anything means income” thereby acquiring fresh power to tax what has already been comprehensively taxed under the principal charging section. The phrase “income from all sources” is not the saving clause FCC is imagining; it is precisely the phrase that proves the field has already been occupied by section 4.
The Court’s endorsement of definitional breadth creates a dangerous template: whenever a constitutional limit is encountered, redefine the term and overcome the limit. However, the constitutional hierarchy runs the other way. Legislative entries define power; statutes exercise it.
A statute cannot, through definitional drafting, resurrect or multiply a power already used to its logical end. The Federal Legislative List is not a buffet of overlapping justifications. A single charge must have a traceable constitutional home.
Lahore High Court (LHC) while upholding super tax under section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 held that since it is for a specific purpose (rehabilitation of the internally displaced persons) it is “cess” , which can either be “tax” or “fee” depending upon the purpose for which it is imposed. The LHC failed to appreciate that “object” may explain why Parliament chose to tax, but it cannot create a new constitutional species of levy in the absence of legislative competence.
Pakistan’s federal taxing competence is entry-bound. A “cess” is not a magical constitutional category that floats above the Federal Legislative List. If the levy is on income, it must locate its constitutional home in Entry 47 or 52. If it is asserted as something “else” (a special-purpose impost), it still cannot escape the requirement of a traceable entry.
Super tax receipts are deposited in the Federal Consolidated Fund, not in a dedicated rehabilitation fund. Once receipts go to the Consolidated Fund, they become part of general revenues, subject to appropriation and political discretion. That defeats the essential earmarking logic of a cess.
Super tax, under sections 4B and 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is neither a “cess” in form nor in substance. It fails every recognized constitutional and fiscal test applicable to a cess, and its validation under that label by high courts, now endorsed by FCC, represents a collapse of doctrinal discipline rather than an evolution of tax jurisprudence.
Historically, when Legislature introduced extraordinary fiscal instruments, namely, ‘Excess Profits Tax’, ‘Business Profits Tax’ and ‘super tax on firms’, it did so in substitution, not accumulation. Entry 47 authorizes “taxes on income”. It does not authorise ‘taxes on income already taxed’, nor does it permit Parliament to fragment a single constitutional subject into multiple cumulative impositions.
The plural “taxes” in Entry 47 has been gravely misunderstood. It refers to the internal structure of an income-tax regime—rates, slabs, schedules, surcharges ancillary to the principal charge—not to multiple independent income taxes operating on the same constitutional base.
Section 4C, like section 4B, uses both, entry 47 (taxes on income other than agricultural income) and Entry 52 which says: “Taxes and duties on the production capacity of any plant, machinery, undertaking, establishment or installation in lieu of the taxes or duties specified in Entries 44, 47, 48 and 49 or in lieu of any one or more of them”.
Super tax under section 4B/4C is calculated on certain incomes on gross basis plus taxable income excluding these items. However, for scheduler incomes (petroleum, insurance and banks), it aggregates income already taxed, with gross amount of profit on debt, dividend, capital gains, brokerage and commission.
This methodology violates the Entry 52 phrase, “in lieu of”, which is constitutionally decisive. It means “instead of,” not “in addition to.” Entry 52 permits Parliament to impose alternative taxation mechanisms, rather than measuring actual income or production. But it allows this substitution only by replacing taxes under Entry 47 or related entries, not by adding new ones.
Sections 4B and 4C ignore this boundary entirely. They impose super tax after income tax has already been assessed under section 4 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Here, super tax neither replaces income tax nor operates as a substitute fiscal mechanism. It simply taxes income again, albeit through a reconstructed computational base. In constitutional terms, it converts a substitutional entry into a cumulative revenue device—precisely what Entry 52 prohibits.
The second misconception advanced by revenue authorities and increasingly accepted by courts is that super tax is an “independent charge” and therefore constitutionally permissible. This argument collapses upon examination. The nature of “independent charge” (super tax) is surcharge, which by definition is parasitic upon a principal levy.
Any such charge, in fact, enhances incidence but does not alter the tax base. Classical surcharge regimes—historical additional duty provisions under earlier income tax laws—were always calculated with reference to income already assessed for income tax purposes, just like section 4AB of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
Sections 4B and 4C do the opposite. These purport to reconstruct the income base by aggregating and reconfiguring income streams while disregarding exclusions allowed under the principal charging provision. It then imposes tax on this reconstructed base in addition to ordinary income tax. This is not surcharge. It is a second levy of income tax disguised as surcharge.
The argument that Parliament enjoys unlimited authority to impose double taxation is equally misconceived. Double taxation is a recognised legislative phenomenon, but it operates under strict doctrinal rules. True double taxation arises where the same income is taxed twice through clear legislative language and identifiable constitutional authority.
Super tax does not represent accepted double taxation doctrine. It represents something far more constitutionally problematic: taxation based on a constitutionally impermissible reconstructed income base, created solely to justify a new levy, super tax.
Courts have consistently accepted that Parliament may tax the same subject twice if constitutional authority exists. What they have not sanctioned—and what sections 4B and 4C attempt—is the creation of a new tax base merely to circumvent constitutional limits. This distinction is critical. Double taxation operates within a recognised constitutional field. Super tax based on recalibration of already taxed income creates a new field without constitutional authority. It is neither “cess” nor doubles taxation on same income base.
By simultaneously invoking Entry 47 (income taxation) and Entry 52 (capacity-based substitution taxation), sections 4B and 4C produce a hybrid levy unsupported by either entry. If it is income tax, Entry 47 governs, and that field stands exhausted through section 4 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. If it is a capacity-based substitute tax under Entry 52, it must replace income tax rather than accompany it.
Judicial endorsement of this hybrid levy reflects a deeper institutional problem: courts have increasingly treated constitutional entries as revenue-enabling clauses rather than power-limiting provisions. This inversion undermines the entire discipline of enumerated powers on which federal fiscal design rests.
If the current interpretation stands, Entry 47 will lose all meaning. Parliament could in addition to income tax impose surcharge, super tax, emergency income tax, resilience income tax, or any number of parallel levies on the same income base simply by drafting separate charging provisions. The Constitution would cease to impose limits and would instead become an instrument of parliamentary fiscal outreach.
The Federal Constitutional Court’s short order, unfortunately, entrenches this fiscal outreach, rather than correcting it. By accepting that super tax may exist as an independent charge while simultaneously remaining a tax on income dissolving the doctrinal boundary between surcharge and parallel taxation. By ignoring the substitutional limitation embedded in Entry 52, it transforms a constitutional restraint into an additional revenue lever. The consequence is not merely doctrinal confusion; it is structural constitutional distortion.
When courts permit taxation beyond enumerated powers, fiscal necessity begins to override constitutional design. That is the precise scenario that constitutional taxation prevents. If courts legitimise such cumulative imposts today, no constitutional entry will remain a limit tomorrow.
Super tax under sections 4B and 4C is therefore unconstitutional not because Parliament lacks fiscal powers and creativity, but because it has exercised that power/creativity beyond constitutional competence. It taxes income already taxed, reconstructs income to justify additional levy in the name of a new independent charge without legislative competence, and simultaneously invokes mutually exclusive constitutional entries. This unconstitutional combination converts substitution into accumulation and surcharge into duplication.
The Constitution permits Parliament to impose taxes on income, with its widest possible meanings. It permits Parliament to design alternative taxation systems in lieu of income tax,but it certainly does not permit it to do both at once. And when substitution becomes addition, constitutional taxation becomes constitutional fiction, rather a nightmarish farce!
______________________________________________________________________
Dr. Ikramul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), member Advisory Board and Visiting Senior Fellow of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), holds LLD in tax laws. He was full-time journalist from 1979 to 1984 with Viewpoint and Dawn. He also served Civil Services of Pakistan from 1984 to 1996.