Home Maxims & Terms Fiscal Legislation meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Fiscal Legislation

Fiscal Legislation legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2013 PTD 1030 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Arts. 73, 77 & 78Fiscal legislationMoney BillInterpretation and Scope"Tax" and "Fee", distinction

"Tax" was a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, whereas a "fee" was a quid pro quo, and a recompense for services rendered

Distinction between a tax and the fee lay primarily in the fact that a tax was levied as a part of a common burden, while a fee was a payment for a special benefit or privilege

"Tax" was levied to raise funds for meeting the "necessary expenses" of the State, therefore, a "tax" was not co-related to services rendered or special benefit or privilege conferred on the taxpayer and accordingly the taxpayer was sharing/discharging his obligation under a common burden without being a beneficiary of a corresponding benefit, whereas in contrast, a fee was not part of the common burden but was payment made in lieu of a benefit, service or privilege by the payer of such fee

Under Art.73(2) of the Constitution, a financial charge that neither fell within the ambit of the Federal Consolidated Fund or the Public Account of the Federation, could not fall within the scope of a "Money Bill".

2013 PLD 282 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Arts. 73, 77 & 78Fiscal legislationMoney BillInterpretation and Scope"Tax" and "Fee", distinction

"Tax" was a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, whereas a "fee" was a quid pro quo, and a recompense for services rendered

Distinction between a tax and the fee lay primarily in the fact that a tax was levied as a part of a common burden, while a fee was a payment for a special benefit or privilege

"Tax" was levied to raise funds for meeting the "necessary expenses" of the State, therefore, a "tax" was not co-related to services rendered or special benefit or privilege conferred on the taxpayer and accordingly the taxpayer was sharing/discharging his obligation under a common burden without being a beneficiary of a corresponding benefit, whereas in contrast, a fee was not part of the common burden but was payment made in lieu of a benefit, service or privilege by the payer of such fee

Under Art.73(2) of the Constitution, a financial charge that neither fell within the ambit of the Federal Consolidated Fund or the Public Account of the Federation, could not fall within the scope of a "Money Bill"

2002 MLD 1608 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Fiscal LegislationFiscalImposition of tax with retrospective effect

Power to impose a tax and to impose tax retrospectively rests with Legislature, which can exercise such power at any time unless prohibited by the Constitution.

1967 PLD 113 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
-Fiscal legislation-Ambiguity

Construction should be beneficial.

1956 PLD 348 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT Judicial Precedent

Fiscal Legislation Fiscal Legislation-Principle of The principle of all fiscal legislation is that if the person sought to be .taxed comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand if the Crown, seeking to recover the tai, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law, the case might otherwise appear to be.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Fiscal Legislation", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21832

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Fiscal Legislation"

CLC 1993
Writ Petitions Nos. 6,10, 13, 8 and 84 of 1992, decided on 2nd July, 1992.

1993CLC66

and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

Court: And Jammu and Kashmir
PLC(CS) 2004
Writ Petitions Nos.5243‑S and 5786‑S of 2000/BWP, decided on 23rd October, 2003.

2004 P L C (C

Mst. RIFFAT NAHEED, LADY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN Versus DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, BAHAWALPUR and 2 others

Court: Lahore High Court
PLD 1956
Writ Petition No. 80 of 1956, decided on 30th April 1956.

P L D 1956 (W

Messrs. EBRAHIM PAPER MART LTD. — ‑Petitioner Versus THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS — Respondent

Court:
PTD 2000
Appeal No.472 of 1994 (in Matter No.3145 of 1993), decided on 10th January, 1997.

2000 P T D 2609

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and others Versus CENTRAL CONCRETE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LIMITED and another

Court: 236 I T R 595
PLD 1966
Suit No. 22 of 1965, Reference under S. 5, Court Fees Act, 1870, answered on 23rd December 1964.

P L D 1966 (W

KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION‑Plaintiffs Versus MESSRS MUHAMMAD ALI SHAIKH ISMAILJI & Sorts‑Defendants

Court:
PLC(CS) 2019
Writ Petition No.4149 of 2019, decided on 8th May, 2019.

2019 P L C (C

SHAUKAT ALI KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 5 others

Court: Lahore High Court (Multan Bench)
PTD 1995
Writ Petition No.31126 of 1992, decided on 8th September, 1993.

1995 P T D 368

M. MOHAN SHET Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA and others

Court: 206 I T R 174
PTD 1998
I. T. R. C. Nos. 161 and 162 of 1987, decided on 11th June, 1992.

1998 P T D 1558

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus M.K. VAIDYA

Court: 224 I T R 186
PTD 2025
Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-4002 of 2019 along with C.P. No.6074 of 2021 and 774 and 2385 of 2002, decided on 12th September, 2024.

2025 P T D 10

SURFACTANT CHEMICAL COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Officer Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others

Court: Sindh High Court
PTD 1993
Tax Referred Cases Nos. 7 and 8 of 1986, decided on 10th April, 1991.

1993 P T D 500

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus BOWRING INSTITUTE

Court: 194 I T R 287