The Republic News News for Everyone | News Aggregator
ISLAMABAD, (UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News – 17th Oct, 2025) The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on Friday adjourned the hearing of the super tax case till Monday, October 20, after the counsel representing tobacco companies concluded his arguments.
A five-member larger bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan heard multiple petitions related to the super tax. The bench also included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Ijaz Ahmad Zahid, argued that under the existing financial framework, the imposition of a “windfall tax” was not feasible. He informed the court that ten tobacco companies are registered with the Federal board of Revenue (FBR), adding that a cigarette pack costing Rs77 is taxed Rs44, leaving Rs33 as profit. He said that even a pack priced at Rs173 carries the same Rs44 tax.
Advocate Zahid contended that Pakistan Tobacco Company dominates the market and controls prices, and that FBR’s lawyers had altered their stance in the comparative tables earlier submitted to the court.
During the proceedings, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that the product’s consumer base does not change suddenly, adding, “You are not paying the entire tax yourself — it is the smokers who are bearing it.
” He further inquired, “What happens if cigarettes are exported to Afghanistan?” to which the counsel replied, “If cigarettes are smuggled into another country, I cannot be held responsible.”
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that the goods are exported in the presence of an excise officer, suggesting that “to overcome the fiscal deficit, the leakage should be plugged from that end.”
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi commented humorously that the company deserved appreciation for earning Rs300 million “on such narrow margins,” calling it “commendable profitability.”
Justice Mandokhail also noted that following the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the constitutional bench was obliged to examine all such matters, as the court could not overlook the constitutional aspect of the case.
After completion of the petitioner’s counsel’s arguments, the bench adjourned further hearing till Monday, October 20.
