ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has dismissed more than 395 review petitions challenging its earlier judgement upholding the constitutional validity of the super tax, ruling that review jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.

“[Review] is warranted only to rectify a manifest error, patent illegality or other infirmity falling within the recognised parameters of review, and not to reopen controversies conclusively adjudicated,” the FCC chief justice observed in detailed reasons issued on Wednesday.

A three-judge bench, headed by the chief justice, had reserved its ruling on Nov 2 on review petitions challenging the court’s Jan 27, 2026, judgement upholding the super tax under Sections 4B and 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

The detailed reasons left intact the earlier judgement, including the applicability of Sections 4B and 4C from the dates on which the respective provisions were introduced.

The review petitions were filed by major banks, textile mills, fertiliser companies, pharmaceutical firms, oil and gas companies, cement manufacturers, power producers and individual taxpayers, including JS Bank, the Searle Company, Fauji Fertiliser, Engro Corporation, Pakistan Petroleum Limited, Attock Refinery, Lucky Cement, Meezan Bank, BankIslami, Colgate-Palmolive, JDW Sugar Mills, Total Parco, Thal Limited, Gul Ahmed and Nishat Chunian, among others.

Authored by the FCC chief justice, the judgement explained that mere disagreement with the reasoning or conclusions of a judgement, or the plausibility of an alternative interpretation, affords no juridical foundation for review. The jurisdiction cannot, therefore, be employed as a disguised appeal or an instrument for rehearing the matter on merits, the judgement said.

Dismissing the review petitions, the FCC held that “no error apparent on the face of the record, material omission or other legally cognisable infirmity” had been demonstrated to justify exercise of its exceptional and narrowly confined review jurisdiction.

On legislative competence, the FCC reaffirmed that the super tax falls squarely within Entry 47 of Part I of the Federal Legislative List, attracting parliament’s competence and the Money Bill procedure under Article 73 of the Constitution.

It also rejected objections to the retrospective application of Section 4C, holding that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any patent illegality and were merely seeking to reopen settled issues.

The bench also repelled objections grounded in Article 25, holding that the income-based classifications and differential rates bear a rational nexus with the legislative object and that “the constitutional guarantee of equality does not interdict reasonable fiscal classification”.

Contentions regarding computation of income, inclusion of capital gains, and application of Section 4C to incomes under final tax regimes were held to have been conclusively adjudicated.

Notably, the court addressed the contention that it was bound by Supreme Court judgements, ruling that following the Constitution 27th Amendment Act, 2025, the FCC exercises independent constitutional jurisdiction, and Supreme Court decisions — while persuasive — were not binding on it. Mere divergence of judicial opinion, therefore, constitutes no ground for review, the FCC held.

The court further clarified that the statutory protections available to petroleum exploration and production companies under the Fifth Schedule and Petroleum Concession Agreements, as well as exemptions for benevolent, provident, pension and gratuity funds under Section 53 read with the Second Schedule, were duly considered and not overlooked.

It observed that questions of individual assessment must be resolved in accordance with law and do not constitute grounds for review.

The judgement under review, along with all directions contained therein, shall remain undisturbed and operative in accordance with the law, the FCC said.

Published in Dawn, November 12th, 2026