Legal Challenge Filed Against Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 2026 ⚖️

A significant constitutional petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by tax expert Prasad Dasanayaka, challenging key clauses of the proposed Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 2026 on grounds of judicial independence and taxpayer rights. • Judicial Oversight Concerns: The petition targets Clause 31, which allows tax default certificates issued by the Commissioner General to be treated as "conclusive evidence." This reportedly prevents Magistrates from questioning tax accuracy, which the petitioner argues is an unconstitutional transfer of judicial power to an administrative body. • Corporate Tax Impact: Clause 4 seeks to redefine "reserves" to include negative retained earnings (accumulated losses) when calculating interest deductions. This change would disproportionately restrict the ability of loss-making companies in sectors like manufacturing or SMEs to deduct interest expenses compared to profitable firms. • Fiscal Transparency: The filing alleges "stealth taxation," noting that the 2026 Budget speech did not disclose these specific redefinitions. It argues this bypasses Parliament’s exclusive control over public finance under Article 148. • Legal Requirement: The petitioner urges the Court to mandate a two-thirds majority in Parliament and a public referendum unless the impugned clauses are amended to align with the Constitution. _Note: Based on provisional court filings dated March 24, 2026._