SHAHBAZ GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 2 (c), 3 to 6 and Schedule A, Ch. 1 Constitution of Pakistan, Arts 73, 199 and 260 (1) Workers' petition Welfare Fund Ordinance, amended in 1971 by the Finance Act (Money Bill) of 2006 and 2008 The constitutional petitioner's request was that the Workers Welfare Fund be a fee and not a tax, thus such amendments cannot be introduced by the Finance Act (Money Bill). And any collection of features related to the collection and use of the Fund's name and the name of the Fund created by the specific law word tax through or in accordance with Article 260 (1) of the Constitution. Regardless of the tax jurisdiction, it will cover all liability under the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance. , 1971 such 1971 said the meaning and scope of such word taxation can be called \ duty be \ This type of fund is received on the income of an industrial establishment and they are provided with workers for housing facilities. Be used for the benefit of , Nor is the quid pro quo a necessary condition for its payer (industrial establishment) in the case of fees as the Fund's legislature did not use the term \ fee used for such funds in the ordinance, nor He was the one who was charged. The government will not be used to provide any services to its payer nor to the benefit of its payee, thus, all such tax deductions in the name of such fund on the total income of the industrial establishment. There are features and characteristics that can be assessed and collected through the relevant tax tax. Officer High Court made such amendments to the principles of the Constitution
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
