Punjab Finance Bill Sparks Outcry Among Legal Fraternity Over Attempt to Reimpose Sales Tax on Legal Services

In a bold and strongly worded statement, Advocate Muhammad Ahmed Qayyum, a senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, has raised serious concerns over the newly proposed Punjab Finance Bill, which allegedly seeks to circumvent the landmark Justice Shams Mirza judgment that exempted legal services from the imposition of sales tax.

In a public comment made via social media, Qayyum noted that the bill "arguably attempts to bypass the Jst Shams Mirza judgment on non-applicability of sales tax on services of lawyers." He warned that the proposed legislation appears to reintroduce a 16% sales tax on legal services — a move that has alarmed many within the legal community.

"This is utterly unacceptable," said Qayyum, highlighting that the measure would make access to justice significantly more expensive for ordinary litigants, especially in light of recent increases in court fees. “Iss pay strikes aur ihtijaaj banta hay (This calls for strikes and protest),” he added, indicating the likelihood of organized resistance from bar associations and legal practitioners across Punjab.

Qayyum confirmed that he has already raised the issue with the Pakistan Bar Council and is now pursuing the matter with the Punjab Bar Council. His proactive stance is expected to galvanize support among lawyers and legal institutions, who view the Finance Bill as an infringement on judicial independence and citizens’ fundamental right to legal representation.

The move has sparked widespread criticism and debate in legal circles, with many calling for the immediate withdrawal of the tax proposal and demanding that the government respect the precedent set by the courts. Legal experts warn that such financial barriers could deter low- and middle-income citizens from seeking redress through the justice system, effectively limiting access to justice.

Bar associations are expected to issue formal responses in the coming days, and protests are already being discussed as the legal fraternity prepares to resist what they see as a regressive and unconstitutional policy.